>L 2775 
.F4 
:opy 1 



1 



EC 



MELIORISM 



99 





BY 



JOHN APPLEY FERRELL, B.S.,C.E. 

A Member of the Kansas Bar 

m 



MELIORISM 



A series of Theological Essays, written in an 
effort to point out to the reader a more reason= 
able and satisfactory interpretation of the ideas 
of God, the Universe, and the Hereafter, and 
to put him in touch with the progressive 
thought of the present relative to these ideas. 




By 

John Appley Ferrell, B. S., C# E. 
A Member of the Kansas Bar 






'\ 



<o 



^<k 



Copyrighted 1914 
JOHN APPLEY FERRELL 



APR 27 1914 



'CI.A374013 



CONTENTS 
Chapter Page 

I. Progress in Theological and Religious Thought 5 

II. Intolerance 14 

III. A Broader Conception 18 

IV. Theology and Religion 24 

V. Is the Bible Infallible? 29 

VI. God 43 

VII. Concerning the Personality of God 48 

VIII. Was Jesus God? 53 

IX. Was Jesus Perfect? 60 

X. The Hereafter 67 

XI. Conclusion, The Value of Life 79 



PREFACE 

Meliorism teaches that there is throughout nature a 
tendency toward improvement. When applied to mankind 
it represents that conception of life which is marked by a 
gradual growing better. This term has been adopted as the 
title of this book for three reasons : 

(1) Because these chapters were first written as the 
articles of a small periodical leaflet called "The Meliorist." 

(2) Because Meliorism is in a measure a synonym for 
evolution, which, I have no doubt, is,in the main,the correct 
conception of what we are wont to call the "Creation." 

(3) Because the present great progressive theological 
movement, in the furtherance of which this book is an effort, 
is in the direction of progress toward a higher, a better and 
a truer conception of God and the universe. 

The author has tried to present his arguments and ideas 
upon the questions discussed in this book in such a manner 
as to be plain and intelligible alike to all. He does not 
pretend to have advanced a single new discovery along the 
lines he has pursued, but hopes that he has gathered together 
and arranged the arguments and discussions presented in 
such a form as to .convince the reader of the reasonableness 
of the position taken upon the various matters herein pre- 
sented. 

It is his opinion, that there are thousands of people all 
over the country who are not and cannot in the nature of 
things be satisfied with the conception of God and of nature 
presented to the~ world in orthodox Christianity. It is hoped, 
that those who are seeking for a more systematic and 
definite conception of God and nature, will find herein 
many ideas and suggestions that will assist them in building 
for themselves more consistent and better conceptions 
of these great subjects. 

J. A. F. 
Sedan, Kansas, 
April 3, 1914 



CHAPTER I 
PROGRESS IN THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS THOUGHT 

For many years, it has seemed that our education, 
our civilization and our morality have all outgrown our 
theology. I have read the history of philosophy and works on 
metaphysics, have studied and watched the progress and 
development of our knowledge through the natural sciences, 
and then have considered the teachings of the Church — 
the teachings that people get from our ministers generally 
throughout the country. When I compare the results 
I am surprised and confounded. I would that all these 
things might agree. Our notions of God and nature, our 
metaphysical theories and our natural sciences should agree ; 
but alas, they do not! 

Upon further investigation, I find that the great leaders 
in the religious and theological world do not believe and teach 
many of the things that our common people are taught to 
believe. To illustrate : 

Rev. John H. Dietrich, pastor of St. Mark's Memorial 
Reform Church of Pittsburg,Pa., on June 6, 1911, in an inter- 
view regarding the charge of heresy lodged against him said : 

"I do not claim to be orthodox, in fact, I have no desire 
to be, for it represents a system of thought based on ignorance 
and superstition. There is no question about the difference 
between the orthodox theory of the world and my theory. 
They believe in a system of things which starts in the fall of 
man, with an atonement wrought out by a dying God mid- 
way and an eternal hell at the end. I believe there never 
was a fall of man : that from the beginning he has risen ; 
that the atonement is not wrought out by a dying God but by 



— 6— 

every man coming into harmony with the laws of the universe 
which are the laws of God ; and if men will do their part 
the kingdom of God lies ahead instead of an endless hell." 

On the 4th day of April, 1911, in an interview, Rev. Luther 
Freeman, formerly pastor of the Independence Boulevard 
Methodist church, Kansas City, Mo., and then the President 
of Morningside College, Sioux City, Iowa, said : 

1 'I did say the Bible was not inspired in the sense that 
its authors had had any direct revelation from God to write 
what they did. There is nothing particularly new in the 
views I expressed. I have been preaching them many years 
in Kansas City and elsewhere. I said we should learn to 
read the Bible correctly and to reject those parts that do not 
conform to what the world is learning to accept as the true 
conception of God, the loving father. 

"God certainly never commanded his prophets to write 
that slavery is good, that war is good and that the other 
bloody and cruel teachings to be found in some of the 
books of the Bible are to be accepted to day as his pre- 
cepts. I said we must read the book of Job, for instance, 
as a drama, as the work of a great philosopher and poet 
and not as the word of God. The author of the Lamen- 
tations was no more inspired by God than was Shakes- 
peare, but that is no reason why we should throw Job out 
of our libraries." 

"Our colossal theologies of Judaism, Christianism, 
Buddhism, Mahometanism, are the necessary and structural 
action of the human mind." — Emerson's Representative 
Man. 

"Under all this running sea of circumstances, whose 
waters ebb and flow with perfect balance, lies the original 
abyss of real Being. Existence, or God, is not a relation, 
or a part, but the whole." — Emerson's Essay on Compensa- 
tion. 

"We are none of us born with a belief in God, but we 
are all born with a tendency to believe what we are told." — 
Inge in Psychology of Faith. 

"Rationalism tries to find a place for God in the picture 
of the world. But God, whose center is everywhere and 
his circumference nowhere, cannot be fitted into a diagram. 



— 7— 

He is rather the canvass on which the picture is painted, 
or the frame in which it is set." — id. 

"For as we have often said, the assumption of the in- 
spiration of the text (of the gospels) has been shattered, 
definitely and irretrievably shattered. Out in the wilderness 
we must now blaze out a path amid the thorns of criticism. 
But this is gain. Criticism is better than dogmatism, as 
manhood is better than childhood. — Foster's Finality of the 
Christian Religion. 

"The four gospels, which are our main sources for the 
evangelical history, are neither biographies nor strictly 
memorabilia, but are books for the purpose of evangeliza- 
tion and edification. They use their material much as 
the popular preacher retells the Parable of the Prodigal 
Son, imaginatively reconstructing it, supplying all sorts of 
embellishments, and adapting it to the practical end in view, 
unmindful to a degree of fidelity to the literal story." — id. 

"At all events, however, so far as the modern man is 
concerned, he can no longer believe in miracles." — id. 

"The Book of Zechariah, which Jews, as well as Chris- 
tians, give as authority for the description of the last Judg- 
ment, refers merely to municipal plan for- municipal im- 
provements laid out by the Maccabes. The poetic and 
fanciful language of scriptural scribes has been misinter- 
preted." — Prof. Paul Haupt of Johns Hopkins University, 
address Apr, 21, 1913, before American Philosophical Assn., 
at Philadelphia, Pa. 

"The affections and emotions are eminently the court 
of appeal in matters of real religion, which is an affair of the 
heart ; but they are not, I submit, the court in which to 
weigh the allegations regarding the credibility of physical 
facts. These must be judged by the dry light of the in- 
tellect alone, appeals to the affections being reserved for cases 
where moral elevation, and not historic convictions, is the 
aim." — Tyndall in Fragments of Science. 

"Whatever revolution takes place will not prevent 
us attaching ourselves in religion to the grand, intellectual 
and moral line at the head of which shines the name of 
Jesus. In this sense we are Christians, even when we sep- 
arate ourselves on almost all points from the Christian 



— 8— 

tradition which has preceded us.*' — Renan's Life of Jesus. 

"There is a time in the past beyond which our memory 
does not reach. Moreover we have reason to believe, that 
there will be a time when the chain of conscious states will 
be broken forever. This consummation is called death. 
In short, the subjective world is transient ; it grows by degrees, 
its existence is very precarious ; it nickers like a candle in 
the wind and will disappear again." — Garus's Soul of Man. 

"But man dieth and is laid low: Yes, man giveth up 
the ghost and where is he : As the waters fail from the 
sea, and the river wasteth and drieth ; so man lieth down 
and raiseth not : till the heavens be no more, they shall not 
awake nor be roused out of their sleep." — -Job. 

"I will not attempt to say how far it is desirable that 
persons who are perfectly satisfied with a creed which they 
have never examined should (as it were) pull up the roots 
of their own faith to see how deep they go. I merely want to 
point out that the occurence of certain emotional experi- 
ences, though undoubtedly they may constitute part of 
the data of a religious argument, cannot be held to constitute 
in and by themselves sufficient evidence for the truth of the 
intellectual theory connected with them in the mind of the 
person to whom they occur." — Rashdall in Philosophy 
and Religion. 

"We are beginning to see that even personality, in any 
human sense of the term, would not honor Deity, but would 
deny his infinitude and mar his perfection." — Henry M. 
Simmons in New Tables of Stone. 

"Innumerable are those who have given their lives for 
a cause they thought sacred. Xenophon told how an un- 
named Armenian urged forgiveness for the king who had 
condemned him to death, — much as Jesus did for the mur- 
derers. Human godlikeness did not have to wait for Chris- 
tianity. Even so orthodox a man as Father Taylor, when 
asked if any other human being had ever been as good as 
Jesus, is said to have replied, 'Millions.* All who love, 
show the inmost essence of divinity, if 'God is love'.*' — id. 

Yet, there seems to be a tendency among religious leaders 
to tolerate and even encourage people in holding to teachings 
that the best intellects of out civilization have discarded. 



— 9— 

There seems to be a feeling prevalent among the church 
leaders that the people are not ready for the change from 
traditional fiction to proven facts ; that it is not safe to turn 
them loose to live a life for the life's sake — with no incentive 
to do right beyond the fact that it is right. 

The great thinkers in the various Christian churches 
no longer believe in the personal man-form of God, the 
Deity of Jesus, his resurrection from the dead, and various 
other theological beliefs taught in the Bible. However, 
many of these leading thinkers are very cautious. 
They actually deceive the people into believing that they 
hold to the old time orthodox beliefs, yet at the same tim e 
and almost in the same breath they tell those who "read 
between the lines" that these old beliefs are not true. A 
striking illustration of this sort of deception is found in 
the Outlook of August 17th, 1912, in an article written by 
Dr. Lyman Abbott, entitled "My Confession of Faith." 
In this article the Doctor says : 

"It might be sufficient to answer categorically : Yes, 
I do believe in a personal God ; in the divinity of Jesus Christ ; 
in his resurrection ; in the miracles ; in the inspiration of 
the Bible. But such categorical reply would be under- 
stood in different ways by different readers. I therefore 
avoid the categorical reply, and set forth here my Christian 
faith, as far as possible, in non-theological terms." 

After reading this short paragraph, the average person who 
does not study the thoughts that the skillful writer puts 
between the lines would say that Dr. Abbott believes in a 
personal God, in the Divinity of Jesus, in his resurrection 
from the dead as taught in the Bible, in the miracles as 
related in the Bible and in the Bible itself, as being the work 
of specially inspired writers, who wrote as the Almighty 
gave them utterance. But the fact is, that Dr. Abbot does 
not believe any of these things in the sense in which the 
common laymen believe them. He does not believe that God, 
the Great Creator of the Universe, is a being in the shape 
and form of a man, who has his throne in some particular 
place in the Universe, and from that high abode controls 
and governs the Universe as an ordinary superintendent 
would control a factory or a business house. He does not 



—10— 

believe anything of that sort. In the same article he uses 
this language : 

"The Latin notion of a human Jupiter, renamed Jehovah, 
made to dwell in some bright particular star, and holding 
telephonic communication with the spheres by means of 
invisible wires, which sometimes fail to work, dies, and the 
old Hebrew conception of a divinity which inhabiteth eternity 
and yet dwells in the heart of the contrite and the humble, 
takes its place." 

Here he specifically says, that the notion of a human 
Jupiter, renamed Jehovah, dies. In other words, a human 
form of God dies and the old Hebrew conception of a divinity 
which inhabiteth eternity, and yet dwells in the heart of 
man, is a true conception of God. He does not believe in 
a personal God at all then ; for a personal being can not 
dwell in the heart of another being, except in a figurative 
sense. But the Doctor was evidently not using figurative 
language ; for he was trying to describe to his reader the 
dwelling-place or habitation of God. 

Again he says in the same article: "That God is in 
nature, filling it with himself, as the spirit fills the body 
with its presence, so that all nature's forces are but expressions 
of the divine will, and all nature's laws but habits of divine 
action — this is the doctrine of the Fatherhood." 

Nothing could say more emphatically that God is not 
a person in human form, but is the great creative force whicht 
pervades all nature and which fills the universe. 

As to his belief in the divinity of Christ, he says : "That 
God is in human experience, guiding, illuminating, inspiring, 
making all willing souls sons of God and joint heir with 
Jesus Christ — this is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit." 

In this quotation he plainly suggests that Jesus Christ 
was no more a son of God than any "willing soul" might 
be. That God may guide and inspire any human being, 
thus exalting him to the same sonship as he did Jesus. 

In regard to the Bible he says: "The Bible is unique 
and incomparable in literature, because it is the history of the 
revelation of God in human experience, beginning with the 
declaration that God made man in his own image, bringing, 
out in law, history, drama, poetry, prophecy, that divine 



—11— 

image more clearly, until it reaches its consummation in 
the portrait of Him who was the express image of God's 
Person and the brightness of his glory." 

What does this clause mean? What is the ' 'Revelation 
of God in human experience?" Our Bible is supposed 
to be about nineteen centuries old, the Old Testament part 
much older. The real meaning of this quotation is this : 
That the Bible protrays God as human experience nineteen 
centuries ago and prior thereto in its crude and primitive 
state, had in its imagination looked upon God. 

In regard to the miracles, after having suggested that he 
believes in miracles, he says: " I do not believe that the 
laws of nature have ever been violated, for this would be to 
believe that God who dwells in nature and animates it, 
has violated the law of his own being," which is to say, 
that he does not believe in miracles at all, that he believes 
the laws of nature have never been broken or violated. 
He goes on to say that the "Geology of the region of the Dead 
Sea remains a perpetual monument to attest and interpret 
the story of the destruction of the Cities of the Plain." 
In this, he would suggest that the Bible story of the destruc- 
tion of Sodom and Gomorrah is true, and in the same breath 
suggests that it was a natural phenomenon. This cannot 
be possible, because the Bible tells us that these cities were 
destroyed by personal act of God, because of wickedness 
of the people, and not by a phenomenon of nature in the 
form of a volcanic eruption, or an earthquake. If the laws 
of nature were not violated in miracles, then Jesus did not 
turn water into wine, did not cast devils out of human beings, 
and a hundred other things claimed in the Bible to have 
transpired as miracles. Dr. Abbott does not believe these 
things ever transpired. 

Such an article as this, it seems to me, is unsatisfactory 
and misleading. What we need for the common people 
today is plain English which states in terms that a layman 
can understand, what our beliefs are and what the best 
evidence we can find tends to prove in regard to these 
matters, rather than indefinite expressions which are sus- 
ceptable of conflicting interpretations. 



—12— 

I want to do all in my power to dispel error and ignorance, 
but I would not sweep away one evil only to have it replaced 
with something worse. 

When we come to understand that our Bible is fallible 
and is the work of men, will we give up in despair and refuse 
to read the message of God that is written wherever we may 
look in the universe; or will we seek the larger and more 
consistent revelations of God throughout nature? When 
we realize that we must give up our deity-conception of 
Jesus, will we discard him altogether ; or will we still recognize 
in him that great leader, whose short but active life set 
on foot the greatest religious movement the world has ever 
known? When we find that the little god, which we have 
created in the image of man, cannot be the great Creator 
and Preserver of all things, will we in our rashness say "There 
is no God ;"or will our minds be turned to greater and more 
consistent conceptions of that infinite Cause of system, 
order and design in all things? 

I believe and confidently expect that, as the people let 
go of these erroneous theological notions, the majority 
of them will lay hold of the higher and more consistent 
conceptions of God and his relations to the rest of the uni- 
verse. Yet, whether they will do this or not, depends upon 
certain conditions: 

In the first place, if the people let go of their old beliefs 
intelligently and because they have investigated and find 
them to be erroneous, the result will be good ; for every one 
who takes the pains to think about these great questions 
enough to reason to the conclusion that the old beliefs are 
wrong, will be impressed with a broader view and a higher 
conception of what must necessarily enter into the makeup 
of true theology. But if people let go of the old beliefs 
negatively, passively and because of indifference to the whole 
matter, then the result will be bad ; for such persons will 
not take the pains to lay hold upon something better. As 
a rule, they will be pessimistic and lose hope, and the change 
will be for the worse. 

However, there is a safeguard against the tendency 
to bad results from teaching the people the faults of their 
old theological beliefs and pointing them to the new. It 



—13— 

is a matter of history, that we are slow to change our theo- 
logical beliefs, whether right or wrong. These beliefs have 
usually grown up with us from childhood and become second 
nature with us. They are the result of childhood associa- 
tions and environment. This tendency not to want to give 
up our old beliefs creates in us a spirit of antagonism and, 
where it does so, we begin at once to think and to study 
the problems involved. If we change at all, we usually 
do so after due consideration. If we decide we are wrong, 
we are then on the lookout for something better. This 
puts us in the best possible position to accept something 
better when it is presented to us. One is sometimes im- 
patient with those who are slow to accept new theories 
and new lines of thought, but this is as it should be. 

I have unbounded faith in the ultimate triumph of 
truth and I cannot believe it is possible, that our orthodox 
Christian theology, which is but the ancient Jewish myth- 
ology, supplemented by the traditions and imaginations 
of an unlearned and superstitious people of two thousand 
years ago, which is contrary to and disproven by all the 
science and philosophy of our present enlightened civiliza- 
tion, and which is shut off from all hope or possibility of 
change or revision by its being considered a direct revelation 
from God, is the proper guide for the religious and moral 
betterment of our generation. On the contrary, I believe 
it is possible for us, aided by the already great and ever 
increasing knowledge of facts and conditions, and the power 
and ability we have developed in the course of the educa- 
tional advancement of our age, to arrive at a more accurate 
and consistent conception of the universe and of God. 



—14— 



CHAPTER II 
INTOLERANCE 

There has always been a great lack of tolerance among 
religious peoples of dogmatic views on matters of theology. 
Early Christian intolerance left behind a trail of blood, 
torture and death. History is full of the recitals of perse- 
cutions on account of differences in theological beliefs. 
Not only was this so in former times, when good, honest and 
religious men and women were crucified and burned at the 
stake or sent to the rack of torture because of their difference 
of faith from the prevailing theological creeds and dogma, 
but today in modern, civilized, Christian America, the 
feeling among the various sects or divisions of the Chris- 
tian church alone as against one another is often most 
bitter. It is not uncommon to see the lines of preference, 
favoritism and even ostracism in social and business affairs 
drawn between members of the different Christian churches. 

This intolerance is much more vehement when directed 
toward those who are not affiliated with the church. It 
makes no difference what one's character, for honesty, up- 
right life and good citizenship is, if he dares to have and 
express an opinion or belief different from the prevailing 
orthodoxy, he is at once a dangerous man, and undesirable 
citizen, a person to be shunned and despised as an enemy 
of mankind. Is not this the same spirit which burned 
people at the stake in olden times? Is not this the same 
spirit which put Jesus upon the cross ? If the Bible account 
is true, Jesus was crucified because he had views different 
from the prevailing theological orthodoxy and dared to 
express those views publicly. There exist in the breasts 
of orthodox Christians today feelings of contempt and hatred 
for the very names of Voltaire, Hume, Paine, Ingersoll, 



—15— 

Huxley and Darwin. Why? Simply because there were 
some things about the Christian theology that they did 
not believe and they were honest enough to say so publicly, 
and not because they were not honest, not because they were 
criminals, not because they were uncharitable, not because 
they were not good neighbors, good fathers, good husbands 
or good citizens. The majority, if not all of these men 
accepted and lived the fundamental principles of the Chris- 
tian religion. They all believed in the religion of "What- 
soever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do 
ye also unto them," of "Go thy way; from henceforth sin 
no more," of "Bless and curse not," of "By their fruits 
ye shall know them." But they did not believe in the fund- 
amentals of Christian theology; they did not believe in the 
immalculate conception of Jesus, they did not believe that 
a being could be half man and half God, they did not believe 
that one being can justly pay the penalty for another's crimes, 
they did not believe in the theory of the atonement, they 
did not believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world 
any more than did thousands of others who all through 
the ages have preferred death to dishonesty. 

The spirit of intolerance which of old persecuted, cru- 
cified and burned people at the stake is the same spirit of 
intolerance, which today looks with suspicion and scorn 
upon all who refuse to accept the unreasonable articles of 
faith of dogmatic Christian- theology. 

The majority of us know little of the truth, and no man 
knows all the truth. The word "faith" itself is an apology 
for ignorance of the truth. We would not talk of "faith 
in God," "faith in Jesus Christ," and "faith in immor- 
tality," if we knew the truth in regard to these subjects. 
After all, what assurance have we that our faith is correct 
that and the other fellow's is incorrect. The very fact that it is 
a faith is enough to brand it with a degree of uncertainty. 
Who knows the facts about God — whether he is in the shape 
and form of a man, or is simply the organizing and sustain- 
ing force at the center of the universe, as suggested in the 
beautiful lines from Emerson? 

"O my brother, God exists. There is a soul at the center 
of nature, and over the will of every man, so that none of 



—16— 

us can wrong the universe." 

Some of the great students of history and theology are 
now trying to prove that there never was on earth such 
a person as Jesus, and one is surprised at the amount and 
plausibility of evidence produced in support of this con- 
tention. In view of the fact, that human frailty and imper- 
fection have had to do with every supposed verbal communi- 
cation of the Divine will to man, that almost nineteen 
centuries have passed since any such supposed communi- 
cation has been reported, why should our notions on these 
matters be considered anything more than beliefs or "faiths"? 
Is it a sin for a man to have his own honest beliefs about these 
theological subjects, even though they may be wrong? It 
is one of the fundamental principles upon which our American 
government was founded that every man should have the 
liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own 
conscience. In other words, every man should have the 
liberty to have his own theological views, and to work out 
in his own way his relationship with God, and to assume 
toward God in his worship, whatever attitude and relation- 
ship his conscience should dictate as the proper worship 
toward the Great Architect who created, governs and sus- 
tains the universe. 

Man's conduct toward his fellowman is the proper 
subject of our criticism, and to a certain extent, is even a 
matter of legal regulation. There are certain fundamentals 
of religious conduct which we all accept and which even 
our laws recognize and require between man and man. 
So long as man lives up to the full measure of our present 
Christian civilization in respect to those acts of honesty, 
charity and morality, which make him a good citizen and 
a good neighbor, why should he be regarded as unworthy 
of friendship, respect and confidence, because his notions 
and beliefs upon questions of theology and metaphysics 
differ from ours? 

Emerson says : "The exclusionist in religion does not 
see that he shuts the door of Heaven on himself in striving 
to shut out others." If we never concede that we might 
possibly be wrong, we never put ourselves in a condition 
to find out whether or not we are wrong ; we say in advance 



—17— 

that we are not expecting anything better ; we refuse to 
listen to anything different from our preconceived notions. 
Dogmatic Christian theology is today just where it was 
nineteen centuries ago. We today know a thousand times 
more about plant life, animal life, the geological condition 
of the earth and the astronomical condition of the universe, 
than was known nineteen hundred years ago. To the man 
who is willing to consider this additional knowledge, the uni- 
verse with its workings means infinitely more than it did 
to the primitive Christian ; yet the dogmatic conceptions 
of God are just as small, just as childish, just as primitive 
as when it was believed that He made the sun stand still, 
in order to permit a general to win a battle, or that he killed 
or caused to be killed all the "first-born" of an entire nation, 
because a monarch refused to permit the children of Israel 
to leave his country. 

Let us grant to others the same right that we claim for 
ourselves to consider these matters in our own best way, 
and decide them by our own best judgment. Let us not be 
angry with those who do not arrive at the same conclusions 
that we have reached. Let us not feel that our notions 
of God and the universe should control the world. Let us 
believe that there are other theories and faiths that may 
be right and ours may possibly be wrong. Let us hope 
for a theology truer to nature than the one which we advocate, 
and finally, let us lay aside the prejudice we have toward 
other faiths, and consider any man a benefactor to humanity 
who will conscientiously think on these matters and give 
to the world the honest conclusion which he reaches after 
such'careful*consideration. 



-18- 



GHAPTER III 
A BROADER CONCEPTION 

On account of the way in which and the conditions 
under which we receive our first experiences regarding 
theological matters, a fair and impartial consideration of 
such matters is a very difficult act for the majority of grown- 
up people. One's first notions of God and the universe 
are obtained in childhood, when he has neither opportunity 
or desire to investigate the truth of the things taught him 
or resist such impressions as are from day to day made 
upon him. To the child the subjects of God, the devil, 
heaven, hell and the hereafter are awe-inspiring. He has 
no inclination to question what he hears. These subjects 
are loaded with such stupendous and awful possibilities 
and consequences, that he is afraid to think for himself 
or to doubt what is told him. Before reaching manhood 
and womanhood these impressions of childhood become 
convictions — convictions not proven, but assumed ; not 
based upon evidence, but upon faith and fear ; not matters 
of judgment, but matters of habit, second nature and a 
part of one's self. 

Instead of considering any evidence that comes to 
us upon theological subjects and bringing to bear upon it 
the same store of experiences and knowledge that we would 
use in considering and passing upon other important sub- 
jects, we are inclined to ask only this : "Is it new or old?" 
"Does it agree with what we have always been taught upon 
these subjects, or not?" If it is old and agrees with our 
already formed notions, we accept it ; if not, we reject it. 
This is not as it should be. The problem of the ages cannot 
be solved by the credulity of childhood. We are not bring- 
ing the right subjective element to bear upon this problem 



—19— 

of problems. The Christian people of today have, in many 
respects, the same theology that the Jews had 2,000 years 
ago: We believe in a God who created man "in his own 
image," therefore we believe God is a being who looks like 
a man. Our children are taught to call him "the good man." 
Yes : objectively, he is thought of as a man with body and 
parts — eyes, ears, hands and feet. He has a mind that works 
after the fashion of the human mind ; it thinks, wills, loves, 
hates. He is moved to wrath and revenge, and is touched with 
pity and mercy. God has his dwelling place in heaven, whose 
location is described in such familiar terms as "in heaven 
above," "on high," "mansions in the skies." These ex- 
pressions were invented when people believed that the earth 
was flat, and that up and down were absolute terms. Now 
we know that the direction of "up" at any one place on the 
earth, makes the circle of the heavens each twenty-four 
hours ; that astronomers have pierced the heavens to the 
distant stars, and still they find nothing that can logically 
be called in the old phraseology "the throne of God." 

As the antithesis of God and heaven, the Christian be- 
lieves in the devil and hell. The devil is in general shaped 
like God and man. Our children are taught to call him 
"the bad man." He is composed of body and parts, and 
has a mind that thinks, designs, plans, and hates ; seeks 
revenge and glories in evil deeds. His dwelling place is 
hell. Hell is "down," "below." As heaven is the home 
of the good after death where God will be the great ruler ; 
so hell is the home of the wicked after death where the devil 
will be the great ruler. 

While we are loath to admit it, we exalt the devil to 
the rank and position of a [god. On the one hand, is the God 
of all good, the "source of all light;" on the other hand, 
the god of all evil, the "prince of darkness." These two 
great forces are arrayed against each other. The world 
is a battle field upon which is waged the never ending battle 
between good and evil. This notion has so far pervaded 
the Christian social fabric, that life is commonly thought 
of as a battle. The spirit of antagonism, jealousy and hatred 
are the logical conditions that attend such a theory. We 
are taught to war against evil and to "do battle for the 



—20— 

Master." This strange theology was invented more than 
2,000 years ago by ignorant and superstitious people. It 
is at variance with every science of nature and with the spirit 
of modern civilization. It is inconsistent with the spirit 
and teaching of Christian religion, and yet we cling to it as 
a drowning man to a straw. 

The wrong and the evil in this world are largely the 
result of ignorance. Ignorance does not need to be conquered 
in a battle. It must be overcome by kindness and by teaching. 
It is a question of education and not a question of con- 
quering. The wickedness, the ignorance and the misery 
that are caused in this world are not the result of an "evil 
spirit" walking to and fro in the land "seeking whom he 
may devour." Our educators of today do not believe or teach 
this. There is a better and higher conception of God and 
the universe. We live in a world controlled by the universal 
laws of God, in a universe in which worlds and systems 
of worlds exist and move under the same unerring laws. The 
Supreme Architect has organized, and day by day, year by 
year, century after century and age after age, supports 
and controls the entire universe. Under and through his 
laws, the earth and all things therein contained have reached 
their present state of being and development. Progress 
and development have marked the succeeding ages and today 
we are in the midst of that progress and development. As 
knowledge increases and approaches universality, so will 
our world approach perfection. It is not a question of battle 
or of war, but a question of growth, of development, of pro- 
gress and of education. We cannot but feel a touch of the 
sublime in contemplating a Supreme Existence, the organizer 
and preserver of all things and in whom we live and move 
and have our being. 

If we could but lay aside our childish preconceptions 
in regard to God and his workings ; if we could but lay aside 
our prejudices, our fears and our superstitions, and take 
a survey of this great problem in the light of advanced 
knowledge and of the teachings of nature, and be willing to 
accept the truth wherever and in whatever form we find it, 
we would be on the road toward a better conception of God* 
and a more consistent theory of theology. 



—21— 

It is a peculiar fact that our Christian religion in the 
main, is far in advance of the motive and incentives held out 
by Christian leaders to induce people to accept and practice 
Christianity. So much of the teaching has to do with the 
hereafter and so little of it with this life ; so much of it deals 
with arbitrary rewards and punishments which have no re- 
lation whatever to the acts to be rewarded or punished. 

We are told that we should live right, because there is a 
hereafter ; that after death there is to be a great criminal 
tribunal which shall sit in judgment upon the deeds of 
every human being ; that the Mighty Judge will divide 
all souls into two classes, the good and the bad, the "sheep" 
and the "goats;" the good, he will exonerate and reward 
with eternal life at his right hand ; the bad, he will convict 
and sentence to everlasting punishment. We are told 
that for the hope of this reward and for the fear of this 
punishment, we should strive to live right. 

There are several strange things involved in this teaching. 
In the first place, hope and fear are put forward as the motives 
for right living. The time was when the school master 
governed his school by this same hope of reward and fear 
of punishment. With the young and the ignorant, who 
are not able to comprehend the great objects and value 
of an education, the hope of arbitrary rewards and fear 
of arbitrary punishments may be used with good effect, 
but to the pupil who comprehends the value of an education, 
how absurd to urge him to study from the hope of such 
rewards and the fear of such punishments. So it is with 
him who knows right from wrong, who comprehends 
the effects of his acts upon himself and others. Why 
should we live right? Because it is right, because of the 
respect we should have for ourselves, love for our fellow- 
men and piety towards God, and not because of a hope or 
fear of a reward or punishment hereafter that we do not 
merit. 

In the second place, it is strange in this teaching, that 
both the reward we are urged to seek and the punishment 
we are urged to shun are arbitrary. The reward is not the 
result or consequence of our good acts, but is an arbitrary 
prize given us long after good acts and their consequences 



have been forgotten. The punishment of an endless torment 
in the hereafter is not the consequences or result of any 
wrongful act committed by us here, but is an arbitrary cruelty 
administered long after the misdeed and its consequences 
have passed away and been forgotten forever. 

In the third place, this si range teaching places the reward 
and punishment so far in the future. Not until we have com- 
pleted this life with its trials and tribulations, its pleasures 
and pains, its joys and sorrows, its griefs and happiness — 
not until we have passed into the great unknown, are we sup- 
posed to receive this eternal reward or everlasting punish- 
ment which awaits all human souls. 

And strangest of all, this teaching which had its origin 
in the infantile age of man when ignorance and superstition 
prevailed, is today promulgated and accepted by and among 
intelligent and civilized people, who know the fundamentals 
of right and wrong and that every act and deed has its direct 
effects, consequences and influence for^ood or bad, and that 
these are the rewards and punishments that are ever being 
meted out to us all. 

In my judgment, the chief concern of humanity is the 
life we are now living. If we could get over the idea that our 
mission on earth is "to get to heaven," that this is only a 
"preparatory" state, and could come to realize that this life 
is the only one with which we are concerned at present, 
that we should live it for its own sake, we would be a long 
way on the road toward a better understanding of both the 
laws of God and the duties of man. This life should mean 
more than it does to the majority of people. 

The most beautiful gems of Christian thought are not 
all the time citing us to the future life : (1) "Blessed 
are they that do hunger and thirst after righteousness : 
for they shall be filled." (2) "A new commandment I 
give unto you, that ye love one another." (3) "Bless them 
that curse you ; bless and curse not." (4) "All things there- 
fore, whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, 
even so do ye also unto them." (5) "By their fruits ye shall 
know them." (6) "But now abideth faith, hope and love, 
these three and the greatest of these is love." (7) "Blessed 
are the pure in heart for they shall see God." (8) "To 



—23— 

him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is 
sin." 

These sublime thoughts are in harmony with the best 
principles of right that have come down to us from all the 
ages. They carry with them no reward or punishment 
but the natural and unavoidable consequences which follow 
our acts. What better reason do we need for doing right, 
than that it is right; what better reason for avoiding the 
wrong, than that it is wrong? 

When we shall have lived this life up to the full measure 
of success, we will be prepared for the future with whatever 
it may have in store for us. 



3V 



tf^K 



24- 



CHAPTER IV 
THEOLOGY AND RELIGION 

I have no mature or completed system of religion or 
theology which I am ready to ask my readers to accept as 
an answer to the many perplexing questions that confront us 
in our study of these most important subjects. Considering 
human imperfections, such a system would be impossible. 
There is, however, much that can be safely done toward 
surveying out our course and finding out our limitations 
in the matter of constructing a practical and progressive 
theology and religion. 

Let the distinction between theology and religion first 
clearly appear: 

Theology is the science of God. Broadly speaking, 
our theology is made up of our conceptions of God, including 
such ideas as we may have regarding his nature, attributes, 
will and laws, as the great Cause and Preserver of the universe. 
Religion is the attitude that man assumes toward God 
and man, and the relations he enters into with God, his 
fellowman and himself as a result of his notions of God 
and nature. Theology is an objective affair; we study God 
and his manifestations very much as we would study a great 
man and his deeds; but religion is a subjective affair; we 
have feelings of adoration toward God, sympathy for our 
fellowman and respect for ourselves ; these move us to action, 
and we work out a religion, which is the outward mani- 
festation of these subjective emotions and feelings. 

The universe and all the laws and workings of nature, 
such as are manifested to us all the time, together with 
all that is unknown to us in nature, are but the handi- 
work and manifestations of God, the Infinite 
Cause and Architect of the universe; and our knowledge 



—25— 

must be taken into account in making up our theological 
notions and forming our conceptions of God. The amount 
and accuracy of this knowledge are today greater than ever 
before, and are continually increasing; and any system of 
theology or religion must, to be worthy of our consider- 
ation, be consistent with this knowledge — not only con- 
sistent with what we know now, but in the future must 
become consistent with what we shall from time to time 
find out. Since human wisdom is destined ever to ap- 
proach but never reach perfection, so should our theo- 
logical and religious conceptions ever approach but can 
never reach perfection. Then, it follows, that from the 
human view point, our theology and religion must be ever 
changing, ever progressing. 

On the other hand, the Bible has been held up as the 
complete and perfect theological and religious guide for 
us heretofore, now and for all time to come , as containing 
the absolute and ultimate truth concerning the existence, 
character, attributes and laws of God, his will toward man 
and the relations and duties of man to God, to his fellowman 
and to himself. If the Bible contains the ultimate facts 
on these subjects, then there can be no such thing as progress 
in theological thought, no such thing as a higher conception 
of God, no such thing as a higher conception of our duties 
to God and our fellowman, for the Bible is before us and it 
contains the last word on these important subjects. The 
very latest teachings which this Bible brings us are 
supposed to be nearly nineteen hundred years old, and 
are in part the theology and religion of the ancient Jewish 
nation, and, in part, that of the Christians of the 1st and 
2nd century A. D. The Bible is in substance the theology 
and religion of the respective ages in which its several parts 
were written and consistent with the knowledge of God 
through nature during those ages. Our present knowledge 
of nature is more than 1800 years in advance of this. Those 
who hold to the belief in an absolute Bible, are trying to make 
a modern civilization fit an ancient theology and religion. 
Every little while we see the heroic efforts of some man to 
harmonize modern science with the Bible. Often strained 
and far-fetched interpretations are placed on Bible pas- 



—26-- 

sages with a view to making them consistent with the ac- 
cepted facts of modern science. This would not be the case 
if the progress in our religion and theology had not been 
stopped by the belief in an absolute Bible. 

Consider for a moment some of the unreasonable and 
unjust things taught in our Bible : 

(1) It is inconsistent with modern notions of justice,, 
that God should have condemned Adam, together with all 
his posterity, to death for disobeying an order of God; it 
being admitted, that, at the time of the disobedience, Adam 
did not know "good and evil." 

(2) It is inconsistent with our conception of an all- 
wise and just God, that he, after having created mankind, 
should for any cause or upon any pretense so "repent" of 
having made man as wilfully to destroy the whole human 
race (except eight persons) by a great flood of waters. 

(3) It is impossible for modern thought to comprehend 
the justice of the act of God in killing the first-born of every 
family of the whole of Egypt, because Pharaoh had refused 
to release from bondage the children of Israel. The act 
would not appear to us so cruel and wanton, if he had killed 
Pharaoh only ; but to kill innocent men, women and children 
for the offense of one man, and at the same time let that 
man escape, cannot be considered by us as the act of a just 
God. 

(4) Jesus is said to have been in the beginning with 
God, himself a God, the one through whom all things were 
created, that he was the son of God, that just prior to the 
beginning of the Christian era he came to earth, was be- 
gotten by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, was born, 
lived on earth as a man for about 33| years ; that his mis- 
sion to earth was to save the world by being offered as a 
sacrifice for the sins of mankind. There are many things 
about this strange history that modern thought cannot 
understand; The word "son" carries with it the notion of 
being begotten and born, the word "God" carries with it 
the idea of the Infinite and uncreated Cause and Supporter 
of the universe. Therefore the idea of a God being the 
son of a God is a contradiction. The word "son" also carries 
with it the idea of mother as well as father. Who was the 



—27- 

mother of the son of God before he came to earth? Again, 
it is not only inconsistent but repugnant to both our morals 
and intelligence to imagine a God being begotten or generated 
through the instrumentality of another God and being 
born of a woman as a human infant. Yet, this is exactly 
the inconsistency which confronts us in the supposed im- 
malculate conception of Jesus. 

(5) The offering of a human sacrifice as an atonement 
for the sins of others has no place in modern thought. 
Sins may be forgiven or the wrong- doer may suffer the 
penalty of his act ; but sin is not a debt that can be settled 
for us by others. 

(6) "He that believeth (the gospel) and is baptized 
shall be saved ; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.'* 
This passage is presumably one of the interpolations ; it is 
not found in the oldest manuscripts of Mark, but it was 
included as a part of the canonical scriptures and has for 
centuries been preached to mankind as the true teaching 
of Jesus. The principle set forth in this quotation is vicious. 
One may justly be condemned for having done something 
bad, but he cannot be justly condemned for refusing to accept 
some particular religious or theological doctrine or creed. 

These are some of the things that lead me to the un- 
avoidable conclusion, that the Bible is not a safe moral 
guide in all things, and that it is not infallible upon theolo- 
gical and religious questions. 

Yet, with all this load of inconsistent and unreasonable 
things, the Christian religion, in one form or another, has 
for a long time been the ruling moral force in many of the 
civilized nations of the earth. This may seem strange, 
but it is easily understood when we investigate further : 

While Jesus accepted the theology of his ancestors and 
worshipped the God of His fathers, he broke away from the 
Jewish conceptions of the duties and relations between 
man and man. He denounced the selfishness of the Jewish 
religion in matters of duty toward others ; herein lies the 
great difference between the teachings of Jesus and the 
teachings of "the law." Modern civilization and thought 
have not improved upon the following beautiful senti- 
ments and teachings of the Christian religion : 



—28— 

(1) "Pure religion and undefiled before our God and 
Father is this, to visit the widows and fatherless in their 
affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." 

(2) "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see 
God." 

(3) "By their fruits ye shall know them." 

(4) "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto 
you, even so do ye also unto them." 

(5) "Neither do I condemn thee; go thy way; from 
henceforth sin no more." 

This last quotation is another one of those interpolations, 
put into the Bible probably by copyists, and not found 
in the older manuscripts ; yet, it is a beautiful thought 
and expresses that kindness of heart which appeals to every- 
one who looks with sympathy upon the unfortunate. 

These are all sentiments and thoughts that will live 
forever and are worthy of the place they have held so long 
in the foremost religion of the civilized world. They are 
not creeds, nor doctrines, nor articles of faith ; yet they 
are today the life-blood of the Christian religion. 

It is proper to note here that these quotations refer 
all the time to one's duty to his fellowman or to himself. 
So long as the Christian religion contents itself with defining 
man's duty to himself and his fellowman, it is most excellent ; 
but when it undertakes to point out man's duty to God, 
it is sometimes unreasonable and vicious. 

In conclusion, let us summarize the thoughts that we 
have tried to bring out : 

(1) Our theology is our conception of God and the 
universe considered as the work of God. 

(2) Our religion is the duties we assume and try to work 
out as the result of our theology. 

(3) Our theology and our religion must conform to 
what we know of God and nature, including humanity. 

(4) Our theology and religion will approach perfection 
only as we come to know the truth. 

(5) The Bible is not an absolute and infallible guide 
to us either in matters of theology or religion. 

(6) Christianity is weak on matters of theology, but 
strong on matters of practical religion. 



-29- 



CHAPTER V 
IS THE BIBLE INFALLIBLE 

At the very threshold of our investigations of the sub- 
ject of Christian theology, we are met with the contention on 
the part of orthodox Christian people, that the Bible is infal- 
lible. This contention is variously expressed in such lan- 
guage as the following : 

"Study the Holy Scriptures. Therein are contained 
the words of eternal life. They have God for their author, 
salvation for their end, and truth without mixture of error 
for their matter." — From the preface to Holman's Edition 
of the Holy Bible. 

In order for the Bible to be infallible, two conditions 
must have been fulfilled : (1) The author must have been God, 
and (2) From the time it was first written to the present time, 
it must have been preserved in its original purity. Neither 
of these conditions can be proven to have existed. On the 
contrary, there is much evidence that neither condition ever 
did exist. 

It is not the purpose of this work to make exhaustive 
investigations, but rather to give the reader the benefit of 
investigations already made. There is enough of undisputed 
evidence, if properly brought together and considered, to 
prove a very different state of affairs from that which the 
majority of us have been taught from infancy to believe. 

Even a superficial examination of the make-up of the 
Old Testament, together with its historical setting, shows 
conclusively that it is a compilation of the literature of one 
of the ancient nations; that, at the time of the making of 
the Old Testament ; that nation was in its age of child- 
like simplicity so far as its intellectual development and 
beliefs were concerned, and that the undeveloped and un- 



—30— 

learned condition of the people, their low standard of morals, 
their superstitions and their lack of civilization, are all 
elements which enter into and make up the thought and 
animus of the writings which we so considerately speak of 
as the "Word of God." 

Who were the Hebrews and what part have they played 
in the history of the world? As we are informed by our 
historians, they were not the most ancient, the most pop- 
ulous, nor the most prosperous of the ancient nations. 
The tradition of the Hebrews seems to have been that Abram, 
the patriarchal progenitor of the Hebrews, came out of 
"Ur of the Chaldees." As a people or tribe they were Semites 
and an off-shot from those ancient peoples who had for 
thousands of years before the time of the Hebrews, inhabited 
the fertile valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. 

Abram, after he had married, went from his native 
land over to the land of Canaan. Soon afterwards, there was 
a "famine" in that country, and Abram went down into 
Egypt, where he remained for some time. Later he returned 
to Canaan and established his permanent home there. 
He had accumulated large flocks and was considered wealthy. 
He gained considerable renown as a warrior in his battle 
with Chedorlaomar, and "found favor" with the King of 
Salem, Melchizedek. I do not know when or how he ac- 
quired the name "Hebrew", It seems that just before 
this battle he was known as "Abram, the Hebrew." — Gen. 
14 :13. Abram died in Canaan, and his posterity lived there 
for about three generations ; but again on account of a "fam- 
ine" they all removed to Egypt. They were prosperous 
for a time, but later they were thrown into bondage. After 
a long period of servitude, they were liberated and started 
on their return to Canaan. 

After many years of wandering about in the "wilderness," 
they finally arrived within their native country again, only 
to find it possessed by others. After a series of wars, or rather 
a period of warfare, lasting over many years, they succeeded 
in establishing themselves again in the land of Canaan. 
This period of strife and warfare is known as the rule of 
the Judges. Samuel, the last Judge, was instrumental 
in the selection of Saul as the first king. Following him, David, 



—31— 

Solomon and Rehoboam came to the throne in succession. 
Solomon had in some ways been a successful king, 
trot his heavy taxes had been a great burden to the people. 
The temple of Solomon was magnificent, but the people 
groaned under the burden of extravagance. They peti- 
tioned his son, Rehoboam, to lighten their burden of taxa- 
tion, but he would not. A division of the kingdom was the 
result. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained in the 
south in and around Jerusalem, and the other ten tribes 
moved to the north and established a new kingdom under 
the name of "Israel," whose new king was Jeroboam. The 
southern kingdom retained Rehoboam as its king and was 
inown by the name of the kingdom of "Judah." 

Thus divided, each kingdom was easy prey to its stronger 
neighbors. About 722 B. C, Israel was conquered by the 
Assyrians; and about 586 B. C, Judah was conquered and 
subdued by the Babylonians, when King Solomon's Temple 
was destroyed. No part of the Hebrew people ever main- 
tained an independent national existence afterwards. They 
had governmental existence only as provinces of such nations 
as successively maintained supremacy over western Asia. The 
last nation to rule over them was the Romans who finally 
laid waste Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews. This was 
about 70 A. D. 

Like all other ancient peoples, the Hebrews were child- 
like in their theological conceptions, and were very religious 
and superstitious. From the start they were fully imbued 
with the idea that God had no other business half so im- 
portant as to look after their particular wants and welfare. 
They start the history of Abram as follows : 

"Now Jehovah said unto Abram, get thee out of thy 
country and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, 
unto the land that I will show thee ; I will make thee a great 
nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great ; 
and be thou a blessing ; I will bless them that bless thee, and 
liim that curseth thee, will I curse ; and in thee shall all 
the families of the earth be blessed." — Gen. 12:1-3. 

From this time on throughout the entire history of the 
Hebrew people down to the time when the city of Jeru- 
salem was laid waste by the Romans and the Jews were 



—32— 

driven to different lands, they assumed to be always in direct 
and personal communication with God, through their 
prophets and inspired men. When they were successful 
in any undertaking of peace or war, that success was attrib- 
uted to their being the "chosen people"jof God and the fact*, 
that his personal favors and blessings were resting on them. 
When they were unsuccessful in their undertakings in peace 
or war, they attributed their misfortune to the personal 
displeasure of God. Not only were their national fortunes 
and misfortunes under the immediate and personal con- 
trol of their God, but the personal acts, deeds, fortunes 
and misfortunes of the individuals were also directed and 
controlled by the pleasures and displeasures of their God. 

The establishment of the kingdom of Saul among the 
Hebrews was presumably about 1050 B. C. So far as is 
known none of the Old Testament was written at that time. 
The indications are that parts of Proverbs were written about 
900 B. C, and were probably the first writings which were 
afterwards incorporated into the present Bible. The newest 
or latest writings that enter into the make-up of the Old 
Testament were probably the Book of Daniel, parts of the 
Psalms and the book of Esther and were completed some 
time about 175 to 150-3B. C. Thus the period within which 
the Old Testament was written covers about 700 or 800 
years of the time extending from about 100 years after the 
building of King Solomon's Temple down to within 150 
years of the Christian era. 

The composition and make-up of the Old Testament 
is very complex. It is composed of parts called books, and 
the subject matter covers a great many different types of 
literature: 

(a) In the first place, it gives the details (at times very 
minute and at times very indefinite) of the history of the 
Hebrew people, including many features that are proper 
subjects of historical record, besides many frivolous and min- 
ute details that are not worthy of space in a history. Many 
of the stories which attempt to relate actual circumstances 
and events aie but the simple imaginations of the inexperi- 
enced and superstitious people. 

(b) Deuteronomy and Joshua (which our Bible scholars 



-33— 

tell us are one and the same production and that the divi- 
sion into two books is a mechanical separation without 
difference of subject matter) were the law books or statute 
books of the Hebrews. The different laws found therein 
were enacted at different times, stretching over a long 
period of the history of the nation. Some of them are 
in conflict with each other, by reason of having been enacted 
at different times and under different conditions and by 
reason of the failure to repeal such laws as became obsolete. 
Some of these laws were excellent for their time; some of 
them were foolish and of no value; others were vicious. 

(c) In addition to the history and the laws found in 
the Bible, there is considerable poetry. Some of the songs 
and other poems are probably very ancient and existed 
among the people long before they were committed to writing. 
The principal poetry of the Old Testament is included in 
Proverbs, Psalms, Lamentations, Job, Canticles and Ecclesi- 
astes. The superstitious and imaginative condition and 
temperament of the people furnished a somewhat fertile 
field for the development of poetry, and poetic strains are 
found in many places in the Bible. 

(d) In addition to the theological tone throughout the 
entire Old Testament, we have the writings of various in- 
dividuals, whose writings purport to be inspired. They call 
themselves "prophets," who pretended to write down the 
Divine Will to their people through miraculous inspiration. 

Thus, we find the Bible to be a volume containing all 
kinds of literature. Its range is from the most frivolous 
and childish stories to personal conversations with angels 
and with God himself. Private and personal difficulties 
between individuals, domestic troubles and infelicities, 
as well as the planning of battles and crowning of Kings, 
enter into the make-up of this strange book. 

Why should this be called the "Word of God" any more 
than the literature of our nation and time, or the literature 
of any other nation? Is it reasonable that the Great Creator 
would select the Hebrew nation as the medium of the rev- 
elation of his will to all nations and for all times? Why 
should the Hebrews have been selected in preference to the 
Babylonians or the other ancient peoples, who had for thou- 



—34— 

sands of years inhabited the valleys of theTigris andEuphrates, 
or in preference to those most ancient, and at that time, probably 
the best civilized of all nations, the Egyptians, who inhabited 
the fertile valley of the Nile ? According to the Old Testament, 
while the Hebrews were under the constant and personal 
care of Jehovah and were almost daily receiving communi- 
cations and revelations from him, all of the rest of the 
people on earth were denied the privilege of his personal care 
and guidance. 

Upon the question of authorship and inspiration of the 
New Testment, let us make a brief study of the so-called 
Synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. 

Nothing is definitely known as to the authorship of these 
books. 

There is not a hint in the texts as to who the authors 
were. The headings are, "The Gospel according to Saint 
Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke" and "The 
Gospel according to Saint Mark." This indicates that these 
books were compiled by some one or more persons, who gath- 
ered together the teachings of these Saints. The books 
undertake to give not only a report of what Jesus said and 
did, but in a great measure the exact language and acts of 
Jesus. Mark, the oldest of the gospels,was written probably 
40 years after the death of Jesus. Prof. Benjamin W. Bacon, 
in his work, "The Beginnings of Gospel Story," says "As it 
is, Mark must be dated about 70-75 A. D., and Matthew but 
a few years later." — Intro, p. 33. Now, if the verbatim report 
were only a phrase or a sentence, one who heard it might 
have remembered it a lifetime ; but in the absence of sten- 
ography and readings from prepared manuscripts, it is im- 
possible that anyone hearing them only once, could remember 
whole discourses for even a day, not to say 40 years. 

Someone is ready to contend, "But these writers were 
inspired to speak the exact truth, and the hand of God has 
preserved and handed it down absolutely unchanged." 
The evidence does not support this contention. In the first 
place these writers do not report the same circumstances 
the same ; in the second place, the several existing manu- 
scripts of these books do not agree, showing that changes 
and interpolations have been made. If the contention 



_ 35— 

were true, the three synoptic gospels, at least, should agree 
perfectly throughout on questions of fact; but they do not. 

Take for example, the following quotations : 

4 'The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they 
shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling 
and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the 
furnace of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 
Mt. 12 :41-2. 

"And He (Jesus) said unto them, Go ye into all the 
world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that dis- 
believeth shall be condemned." — Mark 16 :15-16. 

Why is the first quotation found only in Matthew and the 
second found only in Mark? 

Mark and Luke report the same occasions and some of 
the parables supposed to have been given by Jesus at the 
time Matthew reports Him to have used the language of the 
first quotation, but neither of them reports that quotation 
or the parable which that quotation in part explains. If 
the authors of Mark and Luke were inspired to know the 
exact words of Jesus, why did they omit this important 
warning ? Again, the authors of Matthew and Luke both give 
an extended account of the birth and resurrection of Jesus. 
The author of Mark does not even allude to his birth, and in 
the oldest Greek manuscript of Mark, now in existence, 
his resurrection and acts after his resurrection are all omitted. 
Is it not strange that all this most important part of his 
biography should be omitted by one inspired to testify 
to these very things? The Bible nowhere states that these 
writers were supernaturally inspired, and there seems to be 
absolutely no evidence to support the claim. 

The following quotation, coming, as it does, from so 
eminent an authority as Rev. Edward A. Abbott, D. D., 
Head Master City of London schools, Author of "Cam- 
bridge Sermons, etc., is worthy of our careful consideration : 

"Coming to more general evidence, we find that (1) 
Mark at least, in many passages, includes the original tradi- 
tion from which both Matthew and Luke borrowed ; (2) his 
language less polished than that of Matthew and Luke, 
appears more natural for an earlier gospel in the first and rud- 



—36— 

est age of the church ; (3) Mark's version of the tradition 
contains many expressions which might naturally be con- 
sidered as "stumbling blocks" and which, in fact were re- 
jected or not inserted in the other gospels ; (4) the omission 
of all accounts of the manifestations of Jesus after the 
resurrection indicates a very early date, and though it may 
be said that this omission arises from the fact that the gospel 
was accidentally left incomplete, yet this answer will not 
account for the omission of the genealogies and all account 
of the birth and infancy of Jesus ; (5) The interpolated 
appendix describing the resurrection of Jesus, quoted as 
it is by Irenaeus, shows that even in the time of Irenaeus, 
(170 A. D.) the gospel had been long enough in use to admit 
of wide spread interpolations." — Encyclopedea Britannica, 
Vol. X, p. 723. 

Think of it : Matthew, Mark and Luke all contain pas- 
sages "borrowed" from "tradition"! Mark's language 
lacks "polish" and represents the "first and rudest age of 
the Church!" Mark's "version of the tradition" contains 
many "stumbling blocks!" Mark forgot to say anything 
about the "genealogies," or the "birth, infancy or resur- 
rection" of Jesus! With all these infirmaties, can it be 
that the authors -of Matthew, Mark and Luke were "inspired" 
or that these books are infallible? 

The "interpolated appendix" to Mark above referred to, 
consists of the last twelve verses of the sixteenth chapter 
of the book of Mark in its present form. The oldest Greek 
manuscripts now in existence do not contain verses 9 to 20, 
inclusive. ' This appendix contains the quotation given above 
from Mark. This quotation is not found in Matthew or 
Luke and is spurious. We are glad that it is, for we would 
hate to believe that any one should "be damned" for his 
beliefs. We cannot all believe the same things, it is not 
our nature to do so, and God does not condemn us for honest 
beliefs. 

But returning to our subject, the evidence does not 
support the theory that God is the author of the Bible. 
It looks more like the work of man. 

Even if the Bible had, in the first instance, been the 
word of God, and had in the beginning been infallible, it 



—37— 

could not now, after being for thousands of years in human 
hands, be considered infallible. 

Let us briefly s'can the history of our Bible : 

There are three sources from which our Bible has been 
translated and corrected : 

(1) Greek manuscripts. (2) Old translations of the 
Bible in other languages, principally the Syriac and the Latin- 
These translations are called "Versions." (3) Writings 
of the ancient Christian fathers, in which writings, quota- 
tions are made from early manuscripts of the books of the 
Bible. 

Of these, the Greek manuscripts are first in importance. 
The oldest now in existence are the Vatican Codex and the 
Sinaitic Codex. There is some discussion as to which is 
the older, but it seems pretty certain that neither was written 
earlier than about the beginning of the 4th century A. D. 
Probably the Vatican Codex is the oldest manuscript of the 
Bible in existence. This manuscript has lain in the Vatican 
library at Rome at least 400 or 500 years. For many years, 
the Pope had it carefully guarded, and protestants and 
foreigners were scarcely permitted to see it. Later fac- 
similies were made by order of Pope Pius IX, and the world 
has for some time been in this way permitted to study this 
valuable manuscript. It consists of about 700 pages of 
leather, bound together in book-form. The pages are 
about one foot square and contain three columns to the 
page. Some parts of the text are gone, to-wit : Genesis 
1-46, Psalms 105-127, and all of the New Testament 
after Hebrews 9 :14. This manuscript is, of course, under 
control of the Roman Catholic Church. 

The Sinaitic Codex seems about equal to the Vatican 
Codex in age ; in fact, there is some difference of opinion 
among textual critics as to which of the two is the older. 
However, of more than 1500 different Greek manuscripts, 
the Sinaitic was about the last to be given to the world. 
Dr. Tischendorf, a great German scholar, discovered this 
manuscript in St. Catherine's Convent at the foot of Mt. 
Sinai. After considerable delay, he obtained possession 
of it under a promise that he would present it to Emperor 
Alexander at St. Petersburg. This manuscript was delivered 



-38— 

to Dr. Tischendorf at Cairo on Sept. 28, 1859, and was by him 
delivered at St. Petersburg about November 1, 1859. This 
manuscript was published in 1862 and has since been acces- 
sible to the students of the Bible. This manuscript is also 
of leather, pages about 15 inches by 13| inches and contains 
four columns of 48 lines each. Tischendorf says, that at 
least, four different copyists were employed in making this 
manuscript, one of whom wrote nearly all of the New Tes- 
tament. This Codex is in the possession of the Greek church 
at St. Petersburg. 

The second source of our present Bible is the versions 
or translations that have been made from the Greek and 
Hebrew. The original of the Old Testament is supposed 
to have been written in Hebrew. The original of the New 
Testament is supposed to have been written in Greek. 
At the beginning of the Christian Era, the Jews were familiar 
with the Greek language and for some years after in Europe 
and Asia Minor the Greek language was the common lan- 
guage and understood by nearly every one. 

The Bible was translated into several different languages, 
among which are the Syriac, the Arabic, the Gothic, the Ar- 
menian and the Latin. 

We have no certain information as to the oldest Latin 
version. It was probably made in North Africa, because 
as has been said, for a long time after the dawn of the Chris- 
tian Era the people of Rome and that part of Europe and Asia 
where Christian movement was prominent, were familiar 
with the Greek language. The oldest Latin translation 
was probably made in Africa some time about the close 
of the second Century. The number of different Latin 
versions or translations became so great that by the end 
of the Fourth Century there were a great many errors found, 
and many differences among the various texts. 

About the year 382 Eusebius Hieronymous, better known 
as St. Jerome, visited Rome and attended a synod, and at 
the request of Pope Damascus began the critical labor of 
revising or preparing a corrected edition from the Latin ver- 
sions. It was not long until he had completed a revision of 
the New Testament, but it took him much longer to complete 
the Old Testament. We are told that he compared his 



—39— 

New Testament revision with the old Greek manuscripts 
and prepared his translation of the Old Testament largely 
from the Hebrew. 

There are many interesting incidents told of the manner 
in which this translation was received. It is related that an 
African Bishop who was in favor of the new version had 
ordered the section on Jonah's gourd to be read from it to 
the Church. Jerome had changed 'gourd' to 'ivy' ; and this 
change having announced to the people the advent of a 
new translation, they raised such a tumult that the bishop 
was obliged to abandon his attempt. Even Augustine could 
not part with the old translation, and looked apprehensively 
upon the labors of the bold and by no means conciliatory 
scholar. 

This version prepared by St. Jerome finally came to be 
called the Vulgate. It gradually grew in favor from the sixth 
to the eighth century and during the reign of Charlemagne 
t he text of the Vulgate on account of being handed down 
through copies made by hand, became much corrupted and, 
in order to prevent further corruption of the text, this Mon- 
arch issued a Capitulary in 789, warning against the cor- 
ruption of religious books and directed that the Gospel, the 
Psalter and the Missal should be written with all diligence by 
men of mature age." 

The process of corruption, however, still continued 
and in 1089 the Bishop of Canterbury with great labor pre- 
pared a revision of the Vulgate edition of the Old and the 
New Testament and this revision continued until the time 
of printing, about 1456. In 1545, the Council of Trent met 
and in April, 1546, passed various decrees relating to the Scrip- 
tures. 

The first decree determines what books of the Bible 
are to be regarded as canonical. The second reads in part 
as follows: "Moreover the same Holy Synod, considering 
that no little advantage can accrue to the Church of God, 
if, of all the Latin editions of the sacred books which are in 
circulation, it be made known which is to be esteemed as 
authentic, determines and declares that this ancient and Vul- 
gate edition, which has been approved by the long use of 
so many ages in the Church itself, should be esteemed as 



—40— 

authentic in public readings, disputations, preachings, 
and expositions, and that no one may dare or presume to 
reject it on any pretext whatever." 

One of the decrees passed at this session provides a 
strict regulation for the publication of the Sacred Scriptures, 
and winds up with this edict: "And it shall not be 
allowable for anyone to print or cause to be printed any 
books whatever upon sacred subjects without the name 
of the author, nor to sell them in future, or even to keep 
them, unless they have been first examined and approved 
by the Ordinary, under pain of anathema." 

At the time of and following the meeting of the Council 
of Trent, the Bible of the Christian world was the various 
Latin Versions or rather the various editions of the Latin 
Vulgate. The people had no access to the ancient Greek 
manuscripts, which have already been described. The 
English people sought an English version or translation 
of the Bible. This was obtained from the Latin by Wyckliffe 
and later by Tyndale. Each of these men prepared an English 
version of the Bible. Following this, were published in 1537, 
what is know as "Matthew's Bible" ; in 1539, the "Great 
Bible" ; in 1560, the "Genevan Bible" ; in 1568,'the "Bishop's 
Bible" ; all English versions were taken largely from 
Tyndales' version which had been prepared from the Latin. 

In 1604, a conference of Bishops and Clergy was called 
and presided over by King James himself. The object of 
this conference was to consider the question of a more 
accurate and thorough translation of the Bible. The work 
was completed in 1611, and is known as the King 
James translation or the Authorized Version. This Author- 
ized Version is the text of the Bible with which we are all 
familiar. It has been the authentic Bible for more than 
300 years. During this time, the two ancient Greek manu- 
scripts, already described, have been placed in the hands 
of Bible students. During this same time the English lan- 
guage has undergone many changes. These and other 
conditions have rendered a revision of the Bible necessary. 
This work was accomplished by a commission composed 
of English, American and other Bible scholars, during the 
time from 1881 to 1885. The result of their work is called 



-41— 

the Revised Version, and has now been in the hands of the 
people since 1885. 

The American division of this commission retained 
its organization and continued work upon the Bible and in 
1901 brought out what is known as the American Standard 
Version, published by Nelson & Sons of New York. This, 
in my judgment, is the most carefully prepared revision 
and translation of the Bible that has ever been made. The 
quotations from the Bible found in this book, are taken from 
the American Standard Version, unless otherwise specially 
stated. 

It will be noted that from time of the the preparation 
of the Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome down to 1881, our Bible has 
practically come from Latin translations, but the last two 
versions, the Revised Version and the American Standard Ver- 
sion, have been prepared by the best Bible scholars of all 
times, with the most and best material that has ever been 
^jsed in the preparation of a Bible text. 

I have neglected to say anything about other ancient 
translations than the Latin, for the reason that they have 
not had much to do with the evolution of our Bible. 

The writings of the Christian Fathers have been valuable 
mainly as evidence of the authenticity and accuracy of the 
various Greek and Latin manuscripts used in translating the 
Bible. 

After examining this brief history of the Bible, is anyone 
prepared to say that it is infallible ? Counting from the time 
when the last books of the Bible were first written, down to 
the time of the invention of printing, a space of more than 
1200 years, every single copy was made by hand. Copyists 
were human beings. Suppose them all to have been honest 
(which is a violent supposition) ; they were all subject to 
errors. Many errors, erasures and interpolations have been 
discovered. Can anyone guess how many have never been 
discovered ? 

Our Bible was originally written by men, some of them 
wise and some otherwise. It has been transmitted down 
through the hundreds of generations under conditions that 
were not always conducive to accuracy. Some of the thoughts 



and teachings found in the Bible are good, pure and righteous,, 
some are not. I know of no better rule to use in examining, 
the Bible than the one, it gives : "Prove all things ; hold 
fast that which is good." 




rtfCWto 



—43— 



CHAPTER VI 
GOD 

Much has been said about the utter hopelessness of the 
man who does not accept as infallible and inspired the 
teachings of the Bible. He is criticized for his lack of faith ; 
he is censured for his boldness in presuming to question 
the truth of so sacred a book ; and he is pitied for his ignor- 
ance, his lack of hope of future happiness and his certainty 
of eternal punishment. 

In the light of the present developments in science 
and knowledge, what is the position — the faith and the 
hopes — of the man who does not accept the teachings of 
orthodox Christianity as correct or the Bible as being in- 
fallible? 

As I have before explained, I have no new theology to 
promulgate or new religion to establish. I am in search 
of the truth wherever I can find it, and will accept it where- 
ever I recognize it. 

There are many of us who have for a long time been 
dissatisfied with the old order of things — with the many 
contradictions and absurdities of our former theological 
and religious teachings and faith ; but in the absence of 
something more satisfactory, more consistent, more plaus- 
ible, more definite, we have hesitated to start out in the field 
of investigation for ourselves. Actually fearing to trust 
our own judgment, the only moral guide we have, and being 
frightened at the tendencies of our own thought, we have 
recoiled from the conclusions we were about to reach. But 
it is not exactly the brave thing to do, to shrink from this 
task. It is not wrong for us to follow our own best judgment. 
It is not wrong for us to investigate for ourselves and reach 
conclusions of our own, provided we are not dogmatic and 
do not object to every other person's doing the same thing. 



-44— 

There are many final truths that we can never find, yet there 
are many that we can understand. And in my judgment it 
is the duty of every man to spend at least some time consid- 
ering these questions, to inform himself of the proven 
facts and accepted theories and to investigate for himself 
and develop his own conception if possible, of God and of 
the universe. 

An infinity is that whose limits are inconceivable. In 
mathematics we have a great variety of infinities, but in 
nature there are probably not so many. The great in- 
finities which appear to us in the make up of the universe 
are duration (more commonly called time), space, matter, 
force and God. 

While we cannot comprehend the limits of an infinity, 
we may have some conception of the infinity itself. We 
understand that all things existed in time, that without 
time, there could be no existence, yet we cannot conceive 
the absence of time or duration. We may imagine 
ourselves as far as possible in the infinite past, but we 
cannot conceive the beginning of time. We may im- 
agine ourselves as far as possible in the infinite future, we 
can never conceive a future where time would cease to exist. 
Some imagine that the beginning of all things came about 
as described in the first chapter of Genesis. But when, in 
your imagination, you place yourself there, you cannot think 
but that time existed infinitely back of that. You cannot 
imagine the beginning of time. You cannot imagine the 
existence of anything prior to the existence of time, neither 
can you imagine the end of time, nor the existence of any- 
thing beyond or without the existence of time. Time or 
rather duration, is an infinity. 

Space is one of the infinities. You may imagine your- 
self as far as you can in any particular direction, but there 
you would be just as far from the limits of space as you are 
now. Space is limitless. Time and space are the two great 
infinities within which all things exist. Without time and 
space, an existence is impossible. 

If philosophers tell us the truth, matter is infinite. 
We are told that matter is indestructible. If matter is 
indestructible and cannot cease to exist, then we cannot 



—45— 

imagine the time when matter did not exist. The form 
and composition of matter is changed into thousands of 
different physical structures, which we may observe, but in 
all this composition, this dissolution and re-organization 
of matter, not one particle is lost, nor one new particle 
is created ; all is simply changed. This composition and 
re-organization presents all the phenomena of matter that 
we can and do observe. Matter itself is a constant quantity, 
has existed from the eternal past and will continue to exist 
throughout the eternal future. 

Force is infinite. Scientists have demonstrated that 
force is neither lost nor created. Like matter it exists in 
various forms, and appears to change from one form to 
another. But force itself is never lost ; neither can we con- 
ceive that it was ever created from nothing or from some- 
thing that was not force. We cannot imagine a time when 
force did not exist, neither can we imagine a time when force 
will cease to exist. This test classes force as one of the 
infinities. Some discussion has arisen as to whether force 
is an independent entity or whether it is a property of matter. 
From some viewpoints, it would seem that force is only a pro- 
perty or a Constituent of matter. It is true, that we never 
observe force separate from matter, and we cannot imagine 
such a condition. We are taught that throughout all the 
universe, so far as is known, all the manifestations and 
conditions are the result of the inter-actions of force and 
matter, but whether they are different aspects of the same 
entity or are independent entities is, to our mind, an open 
question. 

Science further teaches that, throughout the various 
and varying inter-actions of matter and force, things are 
continually changing, continually improving, continually 
growing better. The geologist tells us that the time was 
when there was no living thing on the earth and neither 
were the conditions such that any living thing could exist; 
but by the gradual changing of conditions they became 
tolerable to vegetable life. Conditions continued to im- 
prove and animal and vegetable life appeared. These first 
forms of life both vegetable and animal, were simple in 
their structure and organization. As conditions improved, 



the structure and organization of this life improved. Change 
after change has followed down through the countless ages to 
the present time, to the present systematized and complex 
structure of thousands of species of both vegetables and ani- 
mals, to the present structure and condition of our earth. 
It would seem that the process of creation has been in opera- 
tion down through the ages and is still operating. There 
is no suggestion anywhere in nature that this continually 
changing development will ever cease. 

We should note, that in a general way all this chang- 
ing has been toward system, order, development, improve- 
ment. Whether this tendency to ever evolve something 
better is simply an innate tendency of force and matter to 
adjust themselves properly to the changing conditions 
which their own activities create or is produced and guided 
by a power from without is the greatest metaphysical prob- 
lem, which may never be solved. If there is such a power 
aside from matter and force, it is also an infinity ; for that 
tendency comes from a power, whether within matter and 
force or from without, which is the organizing and system- 
atizing power of the whole universe. It is that power which 
has from the infinite past, directed and is today directing 
all activities. It is that same power which will continue 
to direct all activities of the universe until time shall be no 
more. This power, whether inherent in matter or force 
or either, or an independent entity, is an infinity, the pre- 
siding, controlling and directing infinity of the universe. 
The system, the harmony, the beauty and the usefulness 
of everything in the universe from the smallest microscopic 
organism to the great worlds and systems of worlds, that 
are revealed to us through the most powerful telescope, 
are due to the existence of this power. It is the power without 
which all would be chaos. It is that power without which 
no organism or organization could exist for a single moment. 
That power is GOD. Any human effort to describe or define 
God is an effort to find out the bounds and limits to infinity. 
God is not a person, nor the image of a person ; God is not 
an organized being after the type of man with hands, feet, 
face, eyes, ears, body and limbs. God is not a being with 
passions and prejudices, envy and jealousy, hatred, revenge, 



—47— 

pity and love; God is different from all these and above them 
all. 

God never "formed a man out of the dust of the ground," 
andthen by an action inconceivable and contrary to the laws 
of nature, changed this "dust of the ground" in a moment, 
in the twinkling of an eye, into bone and muscle, nerve 
and brain. God never put Adam to sleep and took a rib 
from his side and from that rib made a human being, a 
woman. 

God is the great directing force in nature ; why should 
God who is the very antithesis of miracles, of innovations 
and breaks in the uniformity of nature, perform miracles? 
A miracle would prove the weakness rather than the power of 
God. 

God is the author and the director of system, order 
and harmony, and is that power which from the infinite 
past down to the present has brought the universe to its 
present beauty, symmetry and organization. God is "that 
sublime intelligence which pervades all nature" and "does 
all things well." 




—48- 



CHAPTER VII 
CONCERNING THE PERSONALITY OF GOD 

In criticising the idea of a personal God, of mir- 
acles and of various other accepted features of Christian 
theology, I do so, not in the spirit of intolerance toward 
those who believe and advocate these things, but as one who 
is seeking the truth. I discard whatever appears to me to 
be without foundation in truth. I oppose the theology 
of the man who believes that God is a being with a form of 
which man is the "image," as I would oppose the theory 
of the man who should believe that the earth is flat. I 
may not have a very high estimate of his judgment, or may 
consider him careless and inaccurate in weighing evidence, 
but such opposition or variance of opinion between him 
and me is no.grounds for questioning his honesty or motives. 
Every man has a perfect right to think as his best judgment 
dictates ; in fact, it is his duty to do so. Therefore whatever 
criticisms I may make as to theological creeds and dogma, 
let it be understood, once for all, that it is the creed and 
not he who believes it, that is being criticized. 

I have advanced certain notions regarding the nature, 
attributes and existence of God. These notions have been 
somewhat general and indefinite. For that reason, they 
may not be very satisfactory to some, as presenting a con- 
ception of God. Doubtless we would all like to know more 
than it will ever be possible for us to find out about this 
most sublime subject. Our search after the infinite can 
never meet with more than partial success. We know 
something of time, space, matter and force, but we can 
never know all about them. What we do know about them 
is probably sufficient for our needs, yet it does not satisfy^ 
our desire. We can and we do know something of God,. 



—49— 

probably sufficient to satisfy our needs, but, as before, our 
desire for the truth leads us to continue our search. 

We can neither help nor harm God, in an honest search 
for the truth. The conclusion we may reach, whether right 
or wrong, can in no way affect the nature, attributes 01 exist- 
ence of God, nor the course of nature. Whether God is a 
personality sitting on a throne, or is an inherent consti- 
tuent of force or matter or both, which systematizes and 
directs all nature, or is a great independent infinity pervading 
and controlling all the activities of the universe, does not in 
any way affect the result. We will continue to have life and 
death, joy and sorrow, sunshine and shadow, the gentle zephyrs 
and the stormy blasts, the seed time and the harvest ; the earth 
will continue in her course about the sun and the sun will 
continue in his course through the heavens. And what- 
ever we may find out or fail to find out about God, will not 
affect our relations and duties to our fellowman. So let 
us engage in this search after the truth with pleasure, with 
freedom and fairness, and not with preconceived notions that 
will bias our judgment in considering whatever evidence 
we may find. Let us lay aside that perpetual fear that our 
already formed notions of God will be shattered and that we 
wilt be forever lost. If our present notions are correct, they 
will stand the test ; if not correct, they should be abandoned. 

In considering the belief in the individual and personal 
existence of God, it is worth while to trace to some extent 
the origin and history of this belief, and the evolution that 
has taken place in the beliefs concerning God from the an- 
cients down to the present time. 

Christian theology is based upon Jewish theology, and 
the Jewish theology was a contemporary of Greek and Roman 
theology. 

Jesus was a Jew and he never at any time repudiated 
the Jewish theology. In the sermon on the mount, He says, 
"'Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets : 
I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say 
unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one 
tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things 
be accomplished." — Mt. 4:17-18. 

Orthodox Christians of today believe in the Hebrew 



—50— 

God, Jehovah, who "formed man of the dust of the ground," 
who gave to Moses the ten commandments, and who pro- 
fessed to him "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac 
and the God of Jacob." Jehovah is identical with our Chris- 
tian "God the Father Almighty" whose "only son" is Jesus. 

Like the Jew, the orthodox Christian believes in angels, 
or messenger gods, who were sent on errands by Jehovah 
to all parts of the universe. Angels appeared to Hagar 
(Gen. 16:7), to Abraham (Gen. 18:12), to Lot (Gen. 19:1), 
to Daniel (Dan. 8:16), to Joshua (I Kings 1:3) and to other 
patriarchs and prophets. They also appeared to Joseph 
(Mat. 1:20), to Zacharias (Lk. 1:11), to Jesus (Lk. 22:43), 
and they form an integral part of Christian theology. 

Whether the angels should be classed as Gods or not, 
I do not know. I do know that they are considered celestial 
beings and inhabitants of heaven. They occupy a place 
in Jewish and Christian theology somewhat similar to that 
of Hermes, the messenger god in Greek theology. 

It is true that both Jews and Christians claim to believe 
in monotheism, or the existence of one God only ; but we can- 
not reconcile monotheism with a system of theology pro- 
viding for a God Almighty, a Son of God, archangels, angels, 
a "god of this world" (II Cor. 4:4), presumably the devil, 
and his angels (Mt. 25:41). 

The fundamental error of these theologies is an attempt 
to give to a finite being infinite power and wisdom. Their 
Gods are personalities, beings limited in form and shape, 
organs and parts. In this respect then, they are finite. But 
they attempt to endow these finite personalities with infinite 
power and wisdom. This is irreconcilable. Such a god 
cannot be in distant places at the same time, because he 
is a personality, an individual. Therefore he can not be 
infinite in power, because the location of his existence is 
limited. This is the very reason, and the only reason, that 
these systems of theology provide for angels to carry 
messages and perform acts for the God, who by reason of 
his personality cannot be everywhere at the same time. 

This personality of the Deity is common to all the ancient 
theologies or "mythologies," as we sometimes call them. 

It is easy to understand how the ancients, ignorant, 



—51— 

as they were of nature and nature's laws, could only conceive 
of the great directing power in nature by personifying it, 
by considering it a being, or a number of beings, after their 
own type and likeness, but with greatly increased wisdom 
and power. As they looked out upon nature, they observed 
phenomena that they could not understand. These were be- 
yond their comprehension. In an effort to reason from the 
effect back to the cause, they were acquainted with nothing 
greater, as a directing power, than man. From this, they 
proceeded to imagine a being after the type of man but with 
greater power and wisdom than they had known, to be 
the cause of all things. Thus, as has been said, man 
created God in his own image and after his own likeness. 

The idea of many gods grew as a natural result out of 
this conception of a personal God. The ancients could 
not conceive the same personal being as causing sunshine 
and storm, love and hatred, peace and war, or other appar- 
ently conflicting conditions in nature, as happening at the 
same time. A very natural explanation for these varying 
conditions was developed as follows : 

The Greeks and Romans had their god Zeus or Jupiter, 
who was the greatest of the gods. He presided over and in 
a general way controlled the acts and deeds of all the other 
gods. However, many times the lesser gods would slip away 
from his presence and do things contrary to his will. This 
produced a conflict in nature, and was the ingenious ex- 
planation given by the ancients for these conflicts. 

In our Christian theology, the appearance of Jesus 
as God may be explained in this way : Jehovah had created 
Adam pure and innocent (but not perfect) . Adam was tempt- 
ed by Satan and fell. In this, Satan thwarted the plans 
of Jehovah, very much as Hera and some of the other gods 
used to thwart the schemes of Zeus. 

Since man had fallen, it became necessary to provide 
some sort of opportunity for his redemption. Redemption 
under Jewish theology depended upon faith in a redeemer 
yet to come. However, Christian theology rose to the emer- 
gency and supplied that Savior or Redeemer in Jesus as the 
Son of God. 

Thus it is, that the appearance of Jesus as. a god was 



-52- 



the result of the Jewish beliefjin the fall of man ; and this 
belief in the fall of man was made possible by the belief in 
the personal and individual nature of Jehovah. Satan 
tempted Adam in the absence of Jehovah. The fall of Adam 
would not have been attempted and could not have been 
accomplished in His presence. 




-53— 



CHAPTER VIII 

WAS JESUS GOD 

There are many reasons why I do not believe that Jesus 
was God. But before attempting a detailed presentation 
of these reasons, let us examine the genealogy of Jesus as 
given in the New Testament and see if we can find out what 
it means, or what object the author could have had in giving 
it as therein found. 

What is the purport of the first 16 verses of the gospel 
according to Matthew? Why were these verses written? 
The first verse reads, "The book of the generation of Jesus 
Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." A foot-note 
in the American Standard Version says that "The book 
of the generation of Jesus Christ" may be also translated 
"The genealogy of Jesus Christ." 

It is common for the Chiistian preachers of today to 
explain the promise of God to Abraham "And in thy seed 
shall all nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 22:18), 
to mean that Jesus Christ was that "seed" in which all nations 
of the earth should be blessed ; and, in support thereof, to 
quote such passages as, "Now unto Abraham were the prom- 
ises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, and to seeds, as 
of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." — 
Gal. 3 :16. 

The author of Matthew, going upon the theory of the 
immaculate conception of Jesus, is bound to concede that 
if Jesus was of the "seed" of Abraham, such relationship 
would have to be established through Mary and not through 
Joseph. Yet, in the face of this very fact, he proceeds to 
call Jesus the "son of Abraham" and then follows the line 
of descent from Abraham to Joseph, "the husband of Mary 
of whom was born Jesus." 



—54— 

I see no other object of these 16 verses than to attempt 
to prove that Jesus descended from Abraham ; in fact, that 
is the avowed purpose, to set forth the "book of the genera- 
tion of Jesus Christ." But does anyone think for a moment 
that this genealogy leads to Jesus? Do we from this know 
anything more of the ancestry of Jesus, than that he was the 
son of Mary. We have nothing whatever of her ancestry given 
here or anywhere else so far as I know. If the author 
wanted to show that Jesus was of the "seed"of Abraham, 
why did he not trace the ancestry of Mary? It would cer- 
tainly be as easy for an "inspired" writer to trace her ancestry 
as to trace that of Joseph, and it certainly would have been 
in point to do so. 

One can hardly conceive of a more puerile or absurd 
effort than this, to establish the ancestry of Jesus in Abra- 
ham ; yet, that is the best and, in connection with a similar 
effort in Luke 3 :23-37, the only ground for the statement 
that Jesus was and is the fulfillment of the promise of God 
to Abraham, that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the 
earth be blessed." 

My first reason for believing that Jesus was not God 
is founded upon the fundamental belief that there is but one 
God and that God is not a person. If these propositions, 
or either of them, are true, Jesus could not have been 
God. 

Christian people generally claim to believe in the exist- 
ence of only one God. At the same time, they insist that 
Jesus was the son of that God. In fact, they believe in what 
they call a "God-Head," consisting of God the Father, 
God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, and that these three 
existences or beings compose the one God. Yet, they give 
to each of these three beings the attributes of independent 
self-existence. It will not be claimed that God the Father 
Almighty and Jesus who lived on earth thirty- three years 
were one and the same being, but separate beings ; for 
Jesus was "sent" to this world by the Father for a specific 
purpose. My contention is, that there is but one God. All 
this talk about the "God-Head" composed of the Father, 
the Son and the Holy Ghost is absurd, and there is no room 
or place for Jesus as a second god. My conception of God 



—55— 

is not that he is an individual or person, who sits up in a 
so-called heaven and controls the universe by the word of 
his power or by any sort of omnipotent magic or miraculous 
fiat. God is the great systematic and systematizing force 
element of the universe, in whom we live, move and have 
our being. God is not the father of any one in the literal 
sense of that term ; God never "sent" any one into this world 
to save it; God never has had an "only begotten Son;" 
God has no such associate as the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit 
spoken of in the Bible. I cannot think of Jesus as the Son 
of God, the Son of the Holy Ghost, or of any other super- 
human being. 

Again, my conception of God is that he is an infinity, 
that he has, like matter, time and space, existed from all 
eternity. This conception of God will not allow me to say 
or think that there can be such a thing as a god, who has 
been begotten or who is the son of another god. The pro- 
position is equally absurd, whether we consider the beginning 
of the existence of Jesus to have been at the time of his con- 
ception as the son of Mary, or at some time and place in 
"heaven," prior to the time of his coming to earth. We 
read : 

"For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the 
world ; but that the world should be saved through him." — 
Jn. 1 :17. 

This quotation plainly infers that Jesus must have been 
the Son of God before he was sent to this world. In the 
previous verse we find : 

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- 
gotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not 
perish, but have everlasting life." 

From this quotation we are warranted in drawing the 
following conclusions ; first, that God and the Son were two 
separate and independent beings, two gods ; second, that the 
one was the son of the other, was "begotten" by the other, 
and therefore had a definite beginning at some time subse- 
quent to the existence of the other; and, third, I believe 
we are warranted in the inference, also, that Jesus had a 
mother at the time he was first begotten, and became the 
Son of God. I have no doubt, that the relation of father 



-56— 

and son (begotten by the father) implies and necessitates 
the relation of mother and son, as well ; all of which adds to 
the complexity and unreasonableness of the theory that 
Jesus was a god, or the son of a god. 

The evidence is not uniform as to whether or not 
Jesus believed himself to be God. In the 16th chapter 
of Matthew, verses 15-19, it is stiongly suggested that Jesus 
believed himself to be "the Christ, the Son of the living God.** 
There he seemed to be thoroughly inbued with the notion 
that he was the special representative of God to establish 
a church. Whether he clamed to be the real natural 
Son of God or a son only in an adopted sense is not quite 
clear. He admitted that he was less than the Father (Jn. 
14:28). He rebuked the one who called him "Good Master," 
saying "There is none good, save one, even God." — Lk. 18 :19. 
Upon the whole, it would seem that we are warranted in 
believing that neither he nor his disciples considered him 
anything more than a great man, a leader. 

Another reason for believing Jesus not to have been 
God, is the fact, that nothing that he believed or did in his 
career on earth entitles him to be ranked as a god. 

While Jesus was not a theologian, he was a religionist. 
He believed in a great personal God, in a personal evil one, 
called both "Satan" and the "devil", in messengers of God 
or angels. He believed that God continually communicated 
with man through his angels, and often talked directly to 
good men, chosen as prophets or oracles to transmit his will 
to man, and finally, that God often performed miracles to 
accomplish his purpose and to show his power to mankind. 
These beliefs were not original with Jesus ; they were the 
common beliefs of the Jewish people of the time of Jesus, 

Jesus became a disciple of John, and was baptized 
by him (see Mk. 1 :9). Not long after this John was thrown 
into prison and later put to death, and his religious 
movement would probably have come to an untimely end, 
had it not been for Jesus. Seeing this new movement, 
with which he had become identified, without a leader, 
Jesus took up the cause. At first he preached exactly the 
same things that John had preached: "Repent ye, for the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand." — Mt. 4:17. But as he 



—57— 

continued his labors, his teachings became more extensive 
and comprehensive. Jesus remained the leader of this 
movement until the time of his death. 

It is not easy to determine just what Jesus did teach, 
for the reason that so much of the history is interwoven 
with wonder-stories, which cannot be depended upon for 
the facts. Besides these, however, we have the parables, 
Che sermon on the mount, and other instruction given to 
his disciples. And while some of these lines of information 
seem much more reliable than others, as to what Jesus did 
teach, yet there is not much inconsistency as to the 
religious teachings that run through them. He had no fault 
to find with the "law", but he did continually find fault 
"with the mechanical obedience which the Jews yielded to 
the law. He always looked beyond the "letter" that "killeth" 
to the "spirit" that "giveth life." The so-called "sermon 
on the mount," which, by the way, is not a sermon and never 
was a sermon, is a valuable collection of the more important 
teachings of Jesus. There are many things about it that 
may be criticised ; it lacks unity and logical order ; it contains 
some harsh and cutting things, yet with all, it contains 
a large number of most beautiful gems of moral thought. 

But there is nothing in the line of his moral or religious 
teachings that is super-human. Many of the good things 
lie taught were not original with him, but had been taught 
»y others before him. To Jesus however, must be given 
the credit for having worked up these moral and religious 
teachings into a sort of code, which became the nucleus 
or organizing force in a movement, which Jesus succeeded 
in setting on foot. This movement finally took the form 
of the Church, the instrument through which Christianity 
lias lived, grown and exercised its influence as a religious 
and moral force in the world. Jesus was the leader and 
founder of this great movement, whose influence, having 
out-lived the "fortunes of kings and mutations of empires," 
is a most potent factor in our present advanced civilization. 
This I freely say of Jesus as to his greatness and his worth 
to mankind, but beyond this I cannot go. 

His death is held up to us as a gift of God, an atonement 
for the sins of mankind. This it seems to me, is the crudest 



—58— 

and most puerile contention of all orthodox Christian 
theology. There are so many unreasonable things about 
this atonement theory, that I scarcely know which I ought 
to commence with. 

Jesus is said to have borne "our sins, in his own body 
on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto 
righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." — I Peter 
2:24. "Sin is the transgression of the law." — I Jn. 3:4. 
When we transgress the laws of nature, which are the laws 
of God, we must suffer the penalty. What is the penalty? 
The natural and legitimate consequence of our transgres- 
sions. Can some one else suffer this penalty for us? If 
one person commits murder, can another pay the penalty? 
One person transgresses the law of health and contracts 
a disease can some one else pay the penalty? But suppose 
for the sake of the argument that sin is a debt and may be 
paid by some one else. Let us try to apply this condition 
to Jesus. God sent Jesus into the world to pay this debt 
or penalty. Jesus came to earth, lived 30 years, and then 
started a movement on foot which was obnoxious to the 
people and they, after a sort of trial, condemned him to 
death and executed him. He did not kill himself, he did 
not die because he wanted to die, he did not offer himself 
as a sacrifice, but he was put to death because he had incurred 
the enmity and hatred of a people, who believed he ought 
to die to pay the penalty of his own acts ; and they carried 
out their beliefs. I cannot imagine such a death as being, 
a voluntary sacrifice of love for the sins of the world ; nor 
do I believe any one else, who will consider the facts, will 
so believe. History tells us of hundreds of zealous martyrs 
who have suffered more cruel deaths, and did it more will- 
ingly than did Jesus. No one ever thought or said anything 
about their dying for the sins of the world, or as an effort 
of a loving God to save mankind. 

If you will allow me to call Jesus a man, I can truly 
say he was a great man and did a great work for mankind ; 
but, if you insist that I call him God, then he was about 
the most frail and insignificant god reported in all mythology. 
Let us indulge our imaginations for a moment : Suppose, 
that instead of converting a few thousand people by his 



—59— 

teachings as he did, he had converted a large majority of 
the whole nation (and I submit, that if he had been God, 
he could have done this), what would have been the result? 
First, he would not have been crucified, and would have been 
permitted to continue his work. The Christian move- 
ment in its infancy would have been stronger than it was* 
Can you imagine any bad results upon Christianity that could 
have arisen from such a condition of things? I cannot. 
Jesus would under such circumstances never have been 
crucified. He could have died a natural death or would be 
with us yet. Think how much grander it would have been 
for Jesus just to have stayed with us through all these chang- 
ing scenes for two thousand years. How much more he would 
have been worth to mankind, right here among us, than he 
really has been, sitting up in heaven on a throne with God. 
Think of the work he could have done among men, all through 
the centuries — the souls converted, the evils suppressed, the 
suffering relieved and the happiness brought to the world. 

Of course, such a plan would have spoiled all this atone- 
ment, this dying for the sins of the world, and we would have 
to forego singing about being "Washed in the blood of Jesus," 
but I believe the end would have justified the means. 

It would not have taken a very powerful god to 
climb down off of that cross and spread consternation 
among those old Jewish Rabbis, who had come to enjoy his 
execution. If Jesus had even done that, it would have been 
the grandest thing for Christianity that ever happened. 

But he did none of these things, he was only a man. and 
could not free himself from the fetters of the law, could not 
overcome the prejudice that grew up against him. 



— GO- 



CHAPTER IX 
WAS JESUS PERFECT 

In order to retain Jesus as the Savior of mankind, there 
is a growing tendency among those who are beginning to 
realize the utter fallacy of the deity of Jesus, to exalt him 
to the rank of an ideal man. They would have us believe 
that while Jesus was only a man, he was a perfect man ; 
that by being to mankind the example of a perfect life, 
he leads them on to salvation and is thus still their redeemer 
and savior. I recently received a very interesting little 
monograph in which this tendency is made a prominent 
feature. The book is entitled "The Divinity of Christ," 
and its author Edward Scribner Ames, minister of the Hyde 
Park Church of Disciples of Christ, and Assistant Professor 
of Philosophy in the University of Chicago. 

The following are quotations from this book, showing 
as accurately as may be his adherence to this tendency. 

"The inquiry now is not so much how he (Jesus) came 
into being, but what was his actual life among men, what 
were his thoughts, his feelings, his volitions." — -p. 18. 

"It was commonly believed that the_ Gods took women 
of the human race for wives, and it was inevitable that as 
Jesus came to be regarded as a great personage, this half 
divine, half human parentage should be ascribed to him also. 
That these miracles and this birth should still be regarded 
by informed men of the present day as actual, literal facts, 
is striking evidence of how much of the primitive age of 
child-wonder and savage credulity still survives in the 
world." — p. 25. 

"If he (Jesus) only acted out on earth the part for which 
he had been coached in heaven, or if he did a man's task 
with a God's strength, or if he possessed the equivalent 
of a magic key to unlock the plain, everyday difficulties 



—61— 

which we meet barehanded, then he only makes our despair 
the deeper ; for he is a constant reminder that we are mocked 
by a categorical imperative to perform duties too great for 
us, and to solve problems which to our reason are conundrums, 
forever dark to our natural thought by virtue of a double 
use of words." — p. 29. 

These and other passages found in this book, prove 
conclusively that the author does not believe in the deity 
of Jesus, but believes that Jesus was a human being, born 
just as we were born. 

Taking up the author's evidences of the "divinity" of 
Jesus, I call your attention first to the meaning of the word 
"divinity." 

He does not mean by "divinity of Christ" that Christ 
was God ; he simply means that Christ was the embodiment 
of the good and true; not that he was a "Son of God" by 
virtue of an immaculate conception, (for plainly the author 
does not believe in the immaculate conception) ; but to use 
his own language : 

"It is in this way that Jesus Christ is recognized as the 
son of God, not by accident, nor by the contravention of law, 
but by the perceptible and conscious unfolding within him 
of a spirit sublime enough to be the revelation of the spiritual 
nature of the world." — p. 17. 

"Happy are we to have had that marvelous man born 
as one of our own race, bone of our bone and flesh of our 
flesh ; and happy indeed are we if we believe that God is 
his Father, full of the same grace and truth. To this his- 
toric Jesus, as to the fountain head, men have returned 
and will return, generation after generation, for ideals, 
for comfort and strength." — p. 20. 

"But on the other hand, if he really was like us born 
of two human parents, nurtured by a good mother, schooled 
in the love of his people, sensitive to its plaintive minor 
note, responsive to the best of the prophetic ideals and the 
wisdom of the wise men ; able to translate all this into the 
beatitudes and the story of the prodigal son and the good 
Samaritan ; able also to actually practice genuine friendship 
with Zaccheus and the Samaritan woman and with Judas, 
and to forgive those who Crucified him ; always believing 



—62— 

in the power of love and of his righteous cause; then he 
makes our heart burn within us, he draws us into his fellow- 
ship, he affords us courage and faith and redeems us from 
all sin and weakness." — p. 29-30. 

"He is a revelation of the world, of nature, of God. In 
this way, with his marvelous moral grandeur and simplicity, 
Jesus Christ seems to me to be a revelation of the best things 
we know about the world." — p. 32. 

Thus, the author gives up some of the beliefs that are 
dear to orthodoxy, such as, the immaculate conception, 
the deity of Jesus and miracles ; yet he strives to make Jesus 
an ideal or perfect man — such an example of perfection 
as may be held up to all the world ; which position, though 
less objectionable, is hardly more tenable than those he has 
abandoned. 

Assuming that Jesus was a human being, let us consider 
what merit there is in the claim that he was a "revelation 
of the best things we know about the world," and whether 
or not we can consistently look upon him as an ideal of human 
existence, the perfect man. In order to arrive at a correct 
judgment in this matter, we should consider: 

(1.) His Life. Whether it was such a life as any person 
would want to live or could afford to try to live; whether 
it would be best for humanity if we should all strive to live 
such lives as that of Jesus ; whether, in the last analysis, 
human perfection could be reached, if we could all model 
our lives after his. 

(2.) His teachings, both by precept and example. 
Whether they are consistent and whether they constitute the 
ne plus ultra, the last words and examples for our intellectual 
moral and physical guidance. If so, Jesus is entitled 
to be called the redeemer and savior of mankind ; but 
if his life and teachings fail in all or any of these 
respects, then his claim to the title of redeemer 
and savior must fall, and we must look elsewhere for the 
perfect man. 

At the very outset we are confronted with the fact that 
Jesus was never married ; never had a wife or children or home ; 
never experienced that most sublime of all experiences, 
conjugal love, that kiss and embrace of the holiest of human 



affections, without which no man or woman's life is perfect ; 
never had a home or helped to make one. And there is no 
indication that his disposition and life had the tone that these 
highest of human experiences give. He calls attention 
to the precept "Honor thy father and thy mother," (Mk. 
7 :10-11) but have we a single instance of his ever having 
done so? On the contrary, the records show that he did 
not do this (See Mk. 3 :33-35, and Jn. 2 :4). The only recorded 
instance of real human affection on the part of Jesus is that 
he wept when told by Mary of the death of Lazarus ; but 
this was not extraordinary, for Mary was weeping and the 
Jews that were present wept. How can we idealize and con- 
sider perfect a man who never had a home, was never a hus- 
band, or a father, never showed any filial affection for his 
parents, and so far as we know had few, if any, bosom friends? 

Considered from a scientific view-point, Jesus falls short 
of being the perfect life and ideal to hold up to mankind. 
We might as well speak of a staminate plant as 
a perfect plant. Plant it by itself and it is imperfect and 
falls short of the mission of its own existence. This phase 
of the life of Jesus has doubtless led to the establishment 
of nunneries, monasteries and convents. Is that our ideal, 
our conception of the perfect man? From the view- point 
of the welfare of the human race and progress in moral 
and civil life, such a conception of human life is anything 
but ideal. 

Considering, as we are now, the question of the pref ection 
of Jesus, we find a problem, when we concede the 
suggestion of Dr. Ames, that Jesus was only a man like us, 
""born of two human parents" and that "these miracles 
and this birth" (of Jesus) belong to the "primitive age of 
child- wonder and savage credulity." It is this : Jesus 
either knew that he could not perform miracles and wilfully 
"went about pretending to do so, or he was himself ignorant 
and superstitious and worked himself, as well as others, 
up to the point of believing that he actually could and did 
perform miracles. Which horn of the dilemma shall we 
take? Was Jesus an impostor, willfully and dishonestly 
deceiving the people; or was he ignorant and superstitious, 
belonging to the "primitive" and "child-wonder" age in 



—64— 

which he lived? My honest belief is that the latter is true,, 
and it is certainly the charitable view to take of the matter. 
I think Jesus was a child of the age in which he lived. Hig. 
education was nothing out of the ordinary, he believed 
in the Jewish theology, which from its beginning was full 
of miracles and wonder-stories. Why should not Jesus 
believe these things, just as his brethren did? The evidence 
shows that he did. 

It is barely possible, that Jesus had nothing to do at all 
with the wonder -stories told of him, and that the stories* 
were all made up by zealous admirers and disciples, long after 
the death of Jesus. I would be glad to think this were true 
and to know that Jesus, who in some respects was certainly 
a very grand man, had nothing to do with these unreason- 
able and superstitious stories told of him. However, if 
we discard all these so-called stories and so-called miracles^ 
we will have little left of the meager history given us of the 
life of Jesus. We can hardly retain the statement that 
Jesus "went about doing good, "when we discard practically 
everything which he is said to have done. His principal 
work seemed to be going from town to town and from place 
to place, preaching in the synagogues and casting out devils- 
(Mk. 2 :39.) While I do not believe these wonder-stories, 
I presume that Jesus made these tours of preaching and 
teaching and that there were occurrences from which tradi- 
tion handed down to subsequent generations these stories- 
These occurrences evidently impressed the people with more 
or less of the supernatural, and were construed by Jesus 
and his disciples as being manifestations of supernatural 
or miraculous power. As before suggested, I think the intel- 
lectual condition of the people, their religious beliefs, and 
teachings up to that time, made them an easy prey to their 
own imaginations, and I think Jesus, as well as his disciples^ 
and others associated at these gatherings, thought and be- 
lieved that supernatural power was often manifested in these 
occurrences. 

But whether we consider Jesus a rank impostor or a com- 
mon person of his generation and time, whose imagination 
and lack of knowledge caused him to believe that supernatural 
manifestations occurred on these occasions, the fact remains 



—65— 

that such a person was not a perfect man or an ideal to 
whom mankind can look for guidance down through the ages. 

Jesus taught, as every one does, by precept and by ex- 
ample. By precept Jesus taught some wise and some un- 
wise things. When he attempted to teach the duty of man 
to his fellow man and to himself, his teaching was usually 
profound and sublime. His better teachings form the basis 
of the Christian religion of today, and of these teachings 
we cannot speak too highly. 

On the other hand, his teachings concerning God are no 
better than the ancient Jewish theology, full of wonder- 
stories and cruel and unjust treatment of God to man. 
If he is the author of Mk. 16 :16, one can scarcely conceive 
of a more cruel and unjust thing than his statement there 
that "he that believeth not shall be condemned." 

Neither were his acts always examples of the highest 
type of mankind. 

He was sometimes ugly and abrupt with his mother. 
It is related in Mk.3 :31-35that he disregarded her call for him, 
ignored her and his brothers and proceeded to make a speech 
to the effect, that mother and brothers were no more to him 
than any other good people. In Jn. 2 :l-5, when the mother 
said to him, "They have no wine," he answered her, "Woman 
what have I to do with thee?" There is to me something 
despicable about this language of Jesus to his mother. 
They were in public, in company with others, the mother's 
suggestion was not rude and called for no such retort from 
a son more than 30 years old, who is supposed to be an ideal 
man. One can almost see a sneer and look of disgust in 
his face at the thought, that she should presume to address him 
in the presence of such company. It seems that he was 
ashamed of her and would have liked" to disown her as his 
mother. 

Jesus at times showed an uncontrollable and unreason- 
able temper. He cursed a fig tree, because he was hungry 
and the tree had no fruit on it. (Mk. 11 :14). If we assume 
that he did, or even pretended to do this, what a peevish, 
childish act it was. When Peter called attention to what 
he had done, Jesus answered, "Have faith in God. For verily 
I say unto you, That whoever shall say unto this mountain, 



—66— 

Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea ; and shall not 
doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which 
he saith shall come to pass ; he shall have whatsoever he 
saith." What do you think of this answer? Does he mean 
that through faith in God one can kill a fig tree just because 
he gets out of patience when it does not furnish fruit 
out of season? Yet, this is the person that Dr. Ames would 
hold up to the world as the ideal, the perfect man, who 
* 'affords us courage and faith and redeems us from all sin 
and weakness." 

I have only hurriedly touched upon some of the defects 
in the life and character of Jesus, but what I have found 
out in this short investigation convinces me that Jesus 
can in no reasonable sense be considered the ideal or perfect 
man. 




—67— 



CHAPTER X 
THE HEREAFTER 

The question of what becomes of a human being after 
this earthly career is ended, is at once the question of most 
interest and least study of the problems that appeal to the 
mind of man. 

We are taught that there is a personal existence for 
each of us beyond the grave, and that the good will experi- 
ence joy and happiness infinitely better and greater than 
it is possible to experience here on earth. Yet, when we come 
to face death, none who are healthy and rational want to 
go. The whole question of the hereafter is, to the average 
person, beclouded with misty conceptions or rather imagina- 
tion. 

The Bible does not give us any very clear conception 
of what we may expect the future life to be. Probably our 
predominant notions of heaven and hell are gathered from 
Revelations. 

"I heard a voice from heaven saying : Write, Blessed are 
the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth ; yea, saith 
the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors ; for their 
works follow with them."— Rev. 14:13. 

"And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. 
This is the second death, even the lake of fire. And if any 
was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into 
the lake of fire."— Rev. 20:14-15. 

The prevailing thought is that heaven is, and will be 
throughout eternity, a place of REST for the good ; and that 
hell is and will be throughout eternity, a place of PUNISH- 
MENT for the wicked. 

Neither is the Bible clear as to the nature of the exist- 
ence of the human being in the future. From some passages 
it would seem that both the souls and bodies X)f the good 



—68— 

go to heaven, and both the souls and bodies of the bad are 
sent to hell. From other passages it would seem that the 
bodies of the dead are not resurrected, but new and different 
bodies are furnished them. 

Again, we are puzzled to know what employment or 
business will constitute the life aim of one in the future 
world ; what kind of surroundings and opportunities heaven 
will furnish to those who are fortunate enough to pass 
the pearly gates. These and many other perplexing ques- 
tions must arise in the minds of those who would candidly 
consider the problems of a future life. 

None of us knows much about the future. It has been 
one of the great problems of the ages to find out something 
about the future, and more particularly to find out some- 
thing about the future of man. 

We are told, that we should refrain from studying and 
discussing such questions as these ; that they are beyond 
our comprehension ; and that we are meddling with Provi- 
dence, so to speak, in trying to find out what is none of our 
business. It is true that we know very, very little about 
these matters ; it is also true that we may never be able to 
find out much about them ; but I submit that we are not 
in contempt of the Divine Court for seeking to know more 
of the truth about these all-absorbing problems. The 
brow of God has never frowned upon the candid seeker after 
the truth. While I promise my reader nothing in the way 
of a final solution, I believe I can do something toward 
clarifying the atmosphere, so that we may get, at least, a 
satisfactory view of the great problem of the hereafter. 



I. The Resurrection of The Body. 

In the first place let us consider a few things we find 
in the Bible bearing upon our subject : 

"and Enoch walked with God; and he was not; for 
God took him."— Gen. 5 :24. 

From this, I infer that the writer of Genesis means 
to tell us that Enoch was taken soul and body to heaven, 
or the abode of God. That would mean that human flesh, 



blood and bones went to heaven and lived there. This notion 
is confirmed in Hebrews : 

"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not 
see death ; and he was not found because God translated 
him."— Heb. 11:5. 

If he did not see death, the soul and body were never 
separated, and the body went with the soul to heaven. 
For if there was no death, there was no separation of soul and 
body. 

This same sort of "translation" is related of the prophet 
Elijah : 

"And it came to pass, as they (Elijah and Elisha) still 
went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot 
of fire, and horses of fire, which parted them both asunder ; 
and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." — Kings 2 :11. 

Evidently, the writer means that Elijah went to heaven 
just as he lived on earth, a human being. No body was left, 
for the next verse reads in part: "And he (Elisha) saw 
him (Elijah) no more." If it had been the intention of the 
writer to say that Elijah dies and that his soul ascended 
to heaven, leaving the body, we know that he would not have 
used the language quoted. 

According to the Bible, Jesus himself experienced this 
sort of translation to heaven with soul and body together. 
For his resurrection was a reuniting of his soul with the 
human body that was placed in the sepulcher, the same 
body that he exposed to Thomas, showing him the nail- 
marks in his hands and spear-marks in his side. It was 
this same body that he took to heaven, when he ascended. 

Isaiah tells us that the body shall be resurrected : 

"The dead shall live; 'my dead body shall arise. 
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust : for thy dew is as 
the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast forth the dead." — 
Is. 26 :19. 

Without a doubt, the writer of this quotation believed 
that the dead body of man is to be raised and be as it was 
before death, just as indicated in the resurrection of Jesus. 
Yet, how absurd and impossible such a thing would be. A 
man dies, his body wastes away, nothing is left as it was, 
save possibly a bone or tooth, and that will in time decompose 



—70— 

and change. The materials which once composed the body 
will continue to the end of time changing and uniting in 
all the various combinations, compounds and structures 
of which they are susceptible under the conditions through 
which they shall pass. A body molders away and joins its 
kindred dust. "Earth to earth, ashes to ashes and dust to 
dust." It becomes gas, water and earth ; it enters the bodies 
of plants, animals and other men, on and on, until time 
shall be no more. Some of the elements which today com- 
pose your body, may have heretofore been in succession the 
parts of a dozen different dead human bodies. In the resur- 
rection of these bodies, to whose bodies will these elements 
belong? 

On the other hand, notwithstanding the testimony 
already adduced from the Bible tending to show that soul 
and body go together to heaven, and that the actual material 
human body will after death be reunited with the soul and 
continue thus throughout eternity, we are confronted with 
a flat denial of this proposition : 

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; 
neither can corruption inherit incorruption." I Cor. 15:50. 

Paul undertakes to explain this problem of how we bury 
one body and resurrect another. He says : 

"But some will say how are the dead raised? and with 
what manner of body do they come? Thou foolish one, 
that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it 
die : And that which thou sowest, thou sow not the body 
that shall be but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or 
some other kind ; but God giveth a body even as it pleased 
him, and to each seed a body of its own. — I Cor. 15 :35-39. 
"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corrup- 
tion ; it is raised in incorruption : it is sown in dishonor ; 
it is raised in glory : it is sown in weakness ; it is raised in 
power : it is sown a natural body : it is raised a spiritual body. 
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." — 
I Cor. 15 :42-44. 

Paul uses a very ingenious figure of speech here. There 
is an apparent plausibility in what he says, till you begin 
to examine it, and then to use his own language, it appears 
"foolish." He likens the burial of a dead body to the plant- 



—71— 

ing of seed or grain. Can you by any reasonable stretch 
of the imagination find a similarity between burying a human 
body and the planting of a seed? A seed planted to grow, is 
complete in itself ; it has in it the latent germs of life ; as soon 
as the proper conditions of moisture and heat are present, 
it begins to grow and produce a new body. Yes, a new 
body, but that new body is exactly similar in nature and kind 
to that which produced the seed that was planted. On 
the contrary, death and decay have preceded even the burial 
of the dead body. Instead of being complete, as the seed, 
dissolution has already begun. Instead of having in the 
dead body the latent germs of a new being awaiting an oppor- 
tunity to grow and develop, as in the case with the seed 
that is planted, life has ceased and the entire body decom- 
poses and returns to the elements. But says Paul : "It is 
sown (buried) a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." 
What does this mean? "It" (that is the body) is sown, 
(buried) a natural body; "it (the body) is raised a spiritual 
body. The expression "natural body" is clear, but what does 
he mean by "spiritual body"? This resurrection as Paul ex- 
plains it, evidently consists in changing the dead and 
decomposed matter of a human body into a living spirit, 
Are they interchangeable? Are dead matter and living spirit 
made up of the same elementary components, so that one 
can be changed into the other? If the composition of the 
spiritual body is not identical with the dead matter of 
the body that decays in the grave, then resurrection does 
not mean that the old body is raised at all; it means that 
the old body is left in its decomposition and a new body 
formed of different elements or substance is, not res- 
urrected, but substituted for the old body. 

But, if the old body is not raised, how are we to account 
for the risen body of Jesus Christ having the nail-prints 
in the hands and the spear- wounds in the side? And 
it was this same body that Luke tells us was carried 
up to heaven. "And it came to pass, while he blessed 
them, he parted from them and was carried up to 
heaven." — Lk. 24:51. 

So it is plain, that from the Bible we are unable to decide 
whether there is a resurrection of the body or not. But^ 



—72— 

from our own reasoning and experiences, we know that 
the human body decays after death, disintegrates and sep- 
arates. We know that human bodies have been eaten by 
cannibals and have at once become constituent parts of other 
human beings. It is certain that since the origin of man 
the same materials have composed the dead bodies of different 
persons. It is therefore unreasonable and impossible that 
these human bodies of ours should after death be reorganized 
and resurrected. 

II. The Immorality of the Soul. 

It is a matter of common knowledge and a fact that will 
not be disputed, that the burden of the message of orthodox 
Christianity to humanity is that this life is a preparatory 
state ; that, after death, the immortal part of man will 
come before the bar of God, where this life with its every 
thought and action, will be considered and passed upon and 
judgment will be rendered, decreeing that "These (the wicked) 
shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous 
unto eternal life." The great effort of Christian missionary 
work among the people is to induce them to prepare for the 
hereafter and to lead such lives here on earth as will after 
death serve as a passport to heaven, where they may enjoy 
unsullied bliss and supreme happiness throughout an endless 
eternity. 

It is the purpose here to point out some of the unsatis- 
factory conditions and results that necessarily follow from 
this conception of the hereafter. 

Assuming, for the purposes of this examinations all 
the surroundings and conditions necessary to this theory 
of the hereafter, what do we find in it all that would be satis- 
factory or desirable? 

Our attention is first directed to the obliteration of the 
domestic ties and relations in passing from this life. Two 
infants are born into the world, a girl and a boy, in different 
homes. Their first knowledge is that of their respective 
homes — fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters. Infancy 
grows to youth ; youth to manhood and womanhood. With 
the physical growth comes mental growth. This growth and 



—73— 

development only emphasize the incompleteness in each. 
Something is lacking in each which the other can supply. 
Soon the nature of their beings and surroundings attracts 
each to the other. They meet, love and marry, and a 
new home is created. 

Thus far, it may be truly said, these two have lived a 
preparatory life — growing physically and intellectually, 
morally and socially, learning the ways of the world in 
which they are to live and the meaning and aim of the life 
before them. But now they are entering upon real life- 
work. If it is a real home, love and happiness prevail, 
and another unit of moral and social force is added 
to the community in which they live. Time passes ; 
children are born and reared ; the husband and wife 
(now father and mother) reach and pass the meridian 
of life. Their children gradually grow to manhood 
and womanhood, and one by one, leave to unite with others 
to build homes of their own. Father and mother grow old, 
their life-work has been accomplished. See them as they 
journey hand in hand down the western slope. 

The brave manhood and lovely womanhood are stricken 
with age ; the body weakens, the mind weakens, and the end 
comes. Their labors are over, and we lay them to rest. 
Let us say that these two were good children, good husband 
and wife, good father and mother, good neighbors and good 
citizens. 

Pause a moment to consider : Have their lives been 
complete, or have they only been preparing for some other 
life? If only preparatory, for what have they prepared? 
Should a mind grow old and feeble in its preparatory state? 
But I must turn from this thought at present. 

We are told that Death is the ferryman that trans- 
ports us to the other shore where we must appear before 
the bar of God. The souls of these two whom we have followed 
through a happy and useful life, are now in the presence 
of the great Judge. Listen to the sentence which greets 
them. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not 
knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the 
resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, 
but are as angels of God in heaven."— Mt. 22 :29-3Q. 



—74— 

This quotation, you will remember, is an answer to the 
question proposed by the Sadducees as to the relation in 
heaven between the woman and the seven men, all of whom 
had been her husbands on earth. The unavoidable con- 
clusion from this quotation is that there will be no hus- 
bands and wives in heaven. From a logical view-point too 
that is perfectly reasonable. The perpetuation of life in 
heaven is presumably by immortality of the inhabitants, 
and not by reproduction. There will be no need for man and 
woman, or male and female. 

But think of the effect of this judgment upon the two, 
who are expecting and who deserve the best that heaven can 
furnish them. The two, who have traveled the journey of 
this life together, whose lives have been one, who have lived 
and loved together, who have joined in one flesh, have brought 
into the world and reared their children, are in heaven to 
become separate and independent beings — no home, no 
husband or wife. We remember the old song, "Some 
have husbands over yonder, etc." and "We'll go and see them 
bye and bye, etc." But they will not be our husbands or 
our wives. Why should we want to see them? Will we remem- 
ber the loved ones as they were here on earth? If so, what 
pleasure can we have in heaven to see them, when the holy 
relations of husband and wife, parent and child have ceased 
and the domestic tie and every feature of it is broken up and 
gone forever? Eternity under such conditions might be satis- 
factory to some persons, but to me it does not look very 
flattering. However, we have considered only a part of the 
unsatisfactory conditions of heaven. 

If the lines are drawn as close as some of our orthodox 
brethren would have us think they will be, some of us 
will not get to heaven at all. We will have mothers in heaven 
and fathers in hell ; husbands in heaven and wives in hell ; 
sisters in heaven and brothers in hell, and so on. I have 
in mind a good mother, who has long since gone to her reward 
in heaven, if that is where the good go after death. She 
had a wayward son who was addicted to the intemperate 
use of intoxicating drink. He never joined the church, never 
professed faith in Jesus Christ, and in many ways was not 
as moral as he ought to have been; but he was honest, kind- 



—75— 

hearted and generous, fairly industrious and in many ways 
a good man. He finally died in a drunken spree. I have 
heard that mother say, "Well, John was not what I wish 
he might have been, but he was the kindest boy to me that 
I had." (And she had several boys.) I am sure she spent 
many an hour grieving over the fact that John was doomed 
to eternal punishment ; for she was a good orthodox Chris- 
tian woman. If it is true that John is now is hell and she 
in heaven, has her mind so changed that she has lost her 
love for him? Has she become an "angel of God" and 
quit thinking about John, or loving him or worrying about 
him? If she is in heaven and has quit thinking about John 
and loving him, then she is not the same woman that 
was here on earth, she has not the same mind, the same 
feeling or the same soul that she had here. 

This whole theory of a heaven and a hell hereafter 
seems to be a misfit. It is not a proper sequel to the present 
existence. Either human nature must be altogether changed 
or the heaven pointed out to us would prove to be a place 
of gloom and sorrow to the majority of the good people 
who might be fortunate enough to be admitted there. 

The next question I desire to consider is whether or 
not this life is a preparatory state, and whether or not the 
existence beyond the grave is a real life for which we are 
only preparing here. What is there in this life that indicates 
that it is a preparatory state? 

One enters this life a mere germ, an undeveloped being. 
The mind, soul and spirit are as undeveloped as the body. 
In fact, the human being starts its existence with the dawn 
of this life. It grows and develops all together; the body 
grows and gradually develops; the mind grows and gradually 
develops also; the feelings and will grow as they are nour- 
ished, cultivated and exercised. One passes successively 
the stages of childhood and youth, and finally arrives at man- 
hood or womanhood. The entire being reaches maturity. Af- 
ter a period of active life of from forty to fifty years, the whole 
being begins to fail. Age comes on, the physical and mental 
powers grow weak, and the individual finally becomes help- 
less, physically and mentally. The soul as well as the body 
has run its course and the end comes. 



—76— 

What is there in all this that would indicate a prepara- 
tion for a continuation of this being in its organized form? 
Is an aged and decrepit soul that has forgotten nearly all 
it ever knew, that has become weak and worn out, a necessary 
preparation for a future life of activity? In what respect 
is not this life complete in itself, and in what respect is it a 
preparation for some future life? 

If this life is a preparation for a future life, why has 
the great Creator arranged the conditions so that more than 
half of the human family are cut off in infancy, childhood 
and youth before that preparation can possibly be made? 
And if this preparation for the future life is necessary, what 
is the condition and lot of those who are hurried off to eternity 
without it ? Everything about this preparation-f or-a-f uture- 
life theory seems in explainable and absurd. There is 
nothing plausible or satisfactory about it, and I cannot 
believe it is God's plan. 

It will do us no good to persuade ourselves to believe 
something that is not true. If a man has a soul that survives 
death, then that is God's law and we should all be more 
than pleased to know that such is the case ; if, on the other 
hand, man ceases to have an organic existence at death, 
then, that is God's law and we should all be equally pleased 
to know that such is the case. Whatever facts we can find 
in regard to this important question, we ought to consider 
candidly and be willing to accept the most reasonable con- 
clusion we can arrive at from these facts. 

I have just completed the reading of a very interesting 
book entitled "Modern Light on Immortality." The author 
makes a very learned and exhaustive plea for the immor- 
tality of the the soul of man. He strives very hard to locate 
and define the soul. Probably the most satisfactory defini- 
tion he gives is as follows : "The soul of a living being, then, 
may be construed as the composite of its physical, 
"vital and psychical forces, merged into a super-sensible 
energy or conscious personality, that constitutes the 
presiding power over the organism." According to this 
definition, the physical force, the life (vital) force and 
the mental (psychical) force together constitute the 
soul. If our present theory of the conservation of 



—77— 

force and energy is true, and it is generally accepted, 
these forces existed in one form or another, before they were 
brought together in the human body and organized into 
the soul ; just as the matter forming the human body existed 
in one form or another before it was brought together and 
organized into the body. The body seems to be the necessary 
place and condition for the organization and development 
of the soul as well as of the physical being. No one would 
ever suspect or believe that these forces are ever brought 
together and organized into a soul except through the 
instrumentality and conditions furnished by the body. 
Thus the soul grows and develops with the body, it reaches 
and manifests its mature strength and power in conjunction 
with the mature development and strength of the body ; 
and as the body grows old, weak and feeble, so do the soul 
forces grow weak, inactive and feeble. It is a maxim of the 
school teacher that one cannot have a sound, healthy mind 
in an undeveloped or diseased body. 

Not only is it a fact, that the human body is continually 
changing during life, throwing off waste matter and building 
in new tissue, but it is also true that all of the forces of the 
human soul are continually being expended and renewed. 
The organization alone remains constant; the elements 
of force and matter entering into the human existence are 
continually changing. The store house of force is matter. 
We do not know of the existence of force except as it mani- 
fests itself through matter, and it is a gratuitous assumption 
to say that force, whatever it may be, has an organic existence 
separate and apart from matter in some form. 

It would seem the only logical conclusion that can be 
drawn from these facts, is that the organic existence of these 
forces depends upon the organic existence of the body; 
and that when the body disintegrates and returns to its 
elemental material forms, the soul also disintegrates and re- 
turns to its elemental force forms. Scientifically, I see no 
other possible conclusion, and logically, I see no need for 
any other inference. 

I believe as I have often said, that under our present 
system of religion, too much stress is placed upon the pre- 
paration for a future life, and in the contemplation of the 



delights that we imagine such a life will afford, and too little 
attention is given to the wonderful opportunities for useful- 
ness and happiness in this life. In fact, this world and this 
life are pointed out to us as a "vale of tears" and a place of 
sorrow. When we are "despising the things of this world," 
we should remember that this world is just as much the 
handiwork of God as any future world can be. We have no 
evidence that God made any failure or mistake in the creation 
of this world, or that the future will produce any change 
other than the gradual development or evolution, which 
seems to have been the law of the universe from the infinite 
past to the present time. 

I challenge the reader to imagine a heaven or a future 
world better than this world now is. Remember that when 
you undertake this, you are to plan a whole world and not 
just a little insignificant portion. We must remember 
also that worlds are governed by a complete and perfect 
system of laws and not by exceptions and miracles. I am 
frank to confess, that I have never seen a picture or listened 
to a description of heaven that looked half as good to me as 
this old world of ours. 

Nothing ought to be so important to us as to live this 
life the very best we know how. When we shall have done 
this we will have fulfilled the mission of our existence. 



—79— 



CHAPTER XI. 
CONCLUSION, THE VALUE OF LIFE 

I realize that in this book, I have opposed many of the 
teachings and beliefs held sacred by honest Christian people. 
The infallibility of the Bible, the personal God, the deity 
of Jesus, the resurrection of the body, and even the im- 
mortality of the soul (in the commonly accepted sense of 
that term) have been assailed, and, in my judgment, suc- 
cessfully disproven. And, if I have been successful in this 
effort, a new problem arises. 

We are told by those who believe in the resurrection 
of the body and the organic existence of the soul after death, 
that this life is not an aimless existence but is a preparatory 
state in which we are fitting ourselves for real life beyond 
the grave. Now, if this be not true, then are we to conclude 
that this life is merely an accidental existence and with- 
out purpose? I have always contended and urged that evo- 
lution is the law of the universe, and that we should look 
for and confidently expect a gradual improvement and 
development in all things. But, if man comes into the world, 
lives out a brief existence and then returns to the elements, 
as the arguments in this book would indicate, where is the im- 
provement, the development and the progress that the law of 
evolution demands? What is there in it all that makes life 
worth while? 

Whether these and similar questions have appealed to 
the reader, I do not know ; but I do know that they are per- 
tinent at this time. A discussion of the problem of-' the 
value of life is a suitable conclusion to what has been already 
considered in this book. 

Before attempting any solution of my own for this great 
problem, let us examine the solution which orthodoxy gives: 

In heaven, we will have a delightful place of rest, a beauti- 
ful city of pure gold, with foundation of precious stones, 
walls of Jaspar and gates of Pearl. God the 'Fathei will 



—80— 

be the great King and sit upon his throne, Jesus will be 
there on the right hand of God, angels will be ever in at- 
tendance and all the redeemed will be there. But pause 
a moment! What will it all be for? What is to be accom- 
plished? What is the meaning of such a heaven? Sal- 
vation is the great incentive held out to the world — salvation 
from hell, salvation from eternal punishment, salvation 
from the consequences of our sins. But after we are saved r 
after we pass through the pearly gates, then what? We 
shall bask in the sunshine of the presence of God. But 
will we want to do that forever? We shall enjoy rest from all 
our labors, toils and tribulations here on earth. But will we 
want to rest forever? We shall shout and sing and praise 
4 'God and the Lamb." But will we want to do that through- 
out eternity? What has any one ever suggested for our 
mission, our aim, our life work in the next world? What 
can we do in heaven that will add to progress and develop- 
ment, or that will be worth while? When we have considered 
this problem from the orthodox view-point, there is abso- 
lutely nothing in it beyond the selfish desire to live forever. 

I have never doubted that the world is continually grow- 
ing better, and that the life of every reasonably good man 
or woman adds something to that growth. And while it 
will be difficult to follow out the minute details of that 
growth and the connections which unite each individual 
with the same, yet, I am willing to undertake to give my 
general conception of this great fact. 

A human being comes into existence by an organization 
of appropriate matter and force. These constituents existed 
from eternity, but were never before organized and related 
to each other in just the way in which they are now organized 
and related. Under favorable circumstances the being 
grows and develops into manhood or womanhood. An 
active life of some 40 or 50 years follows, after which old 
age comes on. This human organization has about com- 
pleted its work and the degeneration commences. Soon the 
organization falls to pieces and death is the result. The 
matter and force, though not destroyed or annihilated, 
change their forms of manifestation, and we recognize 
them no more, other than as parts of the great fountain 



— SI— 

or source of matter and force. This in brief is the history 
of mankind. Where is the eternal worth of this existence; 
what is the evolution, the progress, the development? And, 
if there is such a thing as eternal value, or permanent im- 
provement and progress, where do we find it and how can 
we explain it without the aid of the so-called "immortality 
of the soul?" 

Briefly, I may answer this question of questions by 
saying, we must find it in the life-work of the individual. A 
man lives beyond the grave in two ways, (1) by the example 
and influence he gives to others during his life and (2) by 
the offspring, the children, he brings into the world to 
survive him. These two things constitute the immortality 
of man. They may not conform to our notions of immor- 
tality, and at first impulse, may be disappointing to us ; 
but let no one cast this matter aside without careful consid- 
eration. I believe the only immortality worth while must 
emanate from these two sources. The example and influ- 
ence that we give to the world are measured by just what 
we are. Each one is an example that some one else will 
imitate and follow; every one has an influence for good 
or bad among his friends and associates. The ex- 
tent of this example and influence depends upon the per- 
sonality, the intelligence, the power, the ability of the 
individual. The result of this influence and example does not 
live as a monument to the memory of the individual ; that 
is, it is not kept and recognized as a distinct ingredient 
of Worth contributed by Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so. This result 
unites with those of a thousand other influences and ex- 
amples, and the resultant of all these is our present intel- 
lectual, moral and social fabric. These examples arid in- 
fluences, like the other forces of nature, are not lost but 
are united into one grand resultant. 

He who has encouraged others (and especially the 
young) to educate themselves for the work of this 
life, who has induced them to contemplate the ideal, 
to think holy thoughts, perform noble deeds ; he who 
has himself resolved ever to strive for a higher plane of 
life, who has a fraternal love for mankind, who has 
been of valuable service to his fellows, who. has appre- 



—82— 

ciated the handiwork of God and taught others to do so, 
who has loved and sought the truth, pitied the ignorant 
and hated the evil — He who has done these things, has added 
eternal values to the progress and evolution of the universe. 
The hundredth generation hence will be better for his having 
lived ; yea, the universe throughout eternity will retain that 
increment of good which he has contributed. This is im- 
mortality ; not that selfish immortality that would have the 
individual organism exist throughout eternity for its own 
sake without any further development or progress; and 
without any end to be accomplished beyond that of organic 
existence ; but that true immortality, which adds to the pro- 
gress and evolution of the universe the increments of eternal 
development and worth. 

The other element of immortality possible to all healthy 
human beings, is the posterity which they may leave as a 
further contribution to the active, progressive element in 
nature. 

This is the greatest opportunity of all for one to per- 
petuate and improve the existence and life given him. In 
the first place, the child inherits much from the parent. 
The child is the first step in the perpetuation of the vital 
existence of the parent. The child is sometimes spoken 
of as being "of the flesh and blood," of the parents. This 
is true only in a sense, for we learn that the physical make- 
up of the individual is constantly changing and that the 
flesh and blood of an individual of today were not the same 
yesterday, and will not be the same tomorrow. We might 
better say the child is of the same being or organism 
of the parent. It comes from the parent and is the same 
organism or being throughout its life. 

Parents impress themselves upon their children and 
enter into their being in two ways, (1) by heredity and (2) 
by personal influence and example. Without undertaking 
to detail the extent and nature of the inherited character- 
istics from parent to child, I may say in a general way that 
mental power and ability are hereditary ; moral character is 
hereditary ; aesthetical talents are hereditary ; and physical 
peculiarities and qualities are hereditary. So, one transmits 
to his offspring very much of himself, physically, mentally 



—83— 

and morally. 

In addition to the hereditary transmission of one's 
self to his posterity, each parent has the greatest possible 
opportunity for impressing himself upon his children by 
precept and example. Each child is entitled to receive 
from its parents this fullest measure of their influence and 
instruction. The result of this influence and instruction, 
given to one's own child, is not different from the result 
of that given to others, and is received and perpetuated 
in the same way. 

"As we sow, so shall we reap," is a universal law of God. 
Man has been placed in this world to live this life, and not 
to prepare for a future life ; and this life will be to him and 
to the world just what he makes of it. If one lives a life of 
usefulness, he will be successful and happy and the world 
will receive and transmit from generation to generation 
undiminished all the real worth he has given to it. If one 
lives a life worthy of only a transient existence, a negative, 
indifferent, uninfluential life (and there are many who live 
just such lives), for that individual death may end all ; but, 
the one, who lives a life of usefulness and influence and 
leaves as his legacy to the world children more competent 
and influential than himself, has lived a life worth while, 
and has added a measure of eternal value to human 
existence. 



THE MELIORIST 

The Meliorist is a four page leaflet pub= 
lished every other month (six issues in the 
year), and is devoted to the subjects of theology 
and religion. 



"MELIORISM" 



is, in the main, articles taken from the 
Meliorist. Subscription price 

25c PER YEAR 

IN ADVANCE 

Single Copy 5c 

Address all communications to J. A. Ferrell, 
Sedan, Kansas. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

IHIUIIIIIIMIIIIIHIIHIWIMIH^I 
019 971 803 4 




